Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Komallaplli Rama Venkata Dandapani And ... vs State Of A.P. Through S.H.O. And Ors. on 7 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)ALD(CRI)382, 2004(1)ALT605
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Report given by respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioners was registered as Cr.No. 100 of 2003 by the Narsapur Town Police Station under Sections 354, 324, 323 read with 34 I.P.C.
2. Petitioners alleging that they and respondent 2 and 3 who have entered into a compromise want to compound the offence, filed a memo requesting the learned Magistrate to refer the case to Lok Adalat to be held on 18-10-2003.
3. The contention of the learned counsel of the petitioners is that the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur returned the memo on the ground a case which is in crime stage cannot be compounded and contends that in view of the compromise between petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 the F.I.R. against the petitioners may be quashed.
4. When both the complainant and the accused have entered into a compromise and are willing to compound to offence which is compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. merely because the charge sheet is not filed, the Court need not shirk the responsibility to compound the offence because there is nothing in Section 320 Cr.P.C. to show that compounding can be done only after filing of charge sheet. If the offence which requires permission of the Court to do so is to be compounded, the Court can examine the case and decide whether or not to accord permissions to compound. If it feels that permission for compounding can be accorded, it can give the permission even when the charge sheet is not filed and the case is still under investigation. If the offence intended to be compounded does not required permission of the Court and if the Court finds that person with whose consent the offence can be compounded has actually give the consent for compounding, it can compound the offences even when it is at the stage of investigation. In view thereof, the learned Magistrate was in error in returning the memo, without referring the case to Lok Adalat of compromise. If really there is compromise between the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 they still can go before the Lok Adalat and compound the offences which are compoundable. So I find no grounds to quash the F.I.R. When the petitioners requested the learned Magistrate to refer the case to Lok Adalat, he ought to have referred the same to Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat, after issuing notice to the concerned, would decide whether the case can be compounded or not. So, petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate and make a request to refer the case to Lok Adalat. On the request being made, the learned magistrate shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat because all the offences alleged are compoundable offences
5. Petition is ordered accordingly.