Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Judge vs Unknown on 25 September, 2019
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019
IN/AND
Crl.P.No.5710 of 2019
ORDER:
The defacto complainant and his counsel Sri P.L.Narasimha Rao are present. Accused Nos.1 to 3 and his counsel Sri Rambabu Devavarapu are present. Both the parties are identified by their respective counsel.
2. Heard both sides and perused the petitions.
3. In Crime No.31 of 2015, the police of Narasaraopet I Town Police Station, filed charge sheet and cognizance was taken and registered as C.C.No.79 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. After trial, A1 to A3 were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 506, 509, 324 r/w 34 IPC. Aggrieved, the accused filed Crl.A.No.373 of 2016 on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet and the same is pending.
4. At this stage, accused filed Crl.P.No.5710 of 2019 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.79 of 2015.
5. Pending the Criminal Petition, both parties filed I.As.No.02 and 03 of 2019 seeking permission of this Court to compound the offences. It is submitted on their behalf that at the intervention of 2 elders, they settled their disputes amicably, and hence this Court may permit them to compound the offence and consequently, allow the Crl.A.No.373 of 2016 and set aside the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.79 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.
5. On enquiry by this Court, both the parties affirmed the contents in joint memo and submitted that they have no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A3.
6. As per Section 320 Cr.P.C., the offences under Section 320 IPC is non-compoundable, the offence under Section 506 IPC is compoundable and the offence under Section 509 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court.
7. Be that it may, the law on granting permission to compound certain category of offences and consequently, quashing of proceedings is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another1, has delineated the following guidelines:
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code.
Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 3 such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put 4 to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
8. When the case on hand is tested on the touch stone of the above guidelines, in this matter, the offence under Section 506 IPC is compoundable and Section 509 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court. The offence under Section 324 IPC is non- compoundable offence. However, since both the parties have compromised the issue and they are leading peaceful and amicable life and as the offences under Section 324 IPC for which accused are convicted are not heinous offences and as the case has no adverse repercussions on the society, permission can be accorded to the parties to compromise and compound the matter. Consequently, I.A.No.02 of 2019 is allowed and permission is accorded to the parties to compromise and compound the matter. Consequently, I.A.No.03 of 2019 is allowed and Crl.A.No.373 of 2016 is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded in C.C.No.79 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet is set aside and the accused are acquitted of the charges. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 25.09.2019 SS