Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gantla Sanyasi Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 September, 2022
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATHI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2022 IN/AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6199 of 2022
Between:-
Gantla Sanyasi Rao .... Petitioner
And
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Amaravati.
2) Tappeta Vani .... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.Karukola Simhachalam
Counsel for the 1st respondent : Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the 2nd respondent : Mr.A.Ravi Sankar
COMMON ORDER:
I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2022 These applications are filed under Sections 320(6) and 320(2) R/w 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „Cr.P.C), seeking permission to withdraw the complaint, record compromise, compound the offences and to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.107 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Learned XI District Judge-cum-Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2
2. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused before the Station House Officer, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam District, for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 341, 506, 509 and 279 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and the said case is now pending before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner/accused and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant are present and they are identified by their respective counsel and produced Photostat copies of Aadhar cards to prove their identity.
4. A Joint Memo dated 02.09.2022 is filed by the parties, when terms of Joint Memo of compromise are explained in Telugu language, they are admitted to be true and correct. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the petitioner/accused voluntarily entered into compromise, settled the matter outside the Court and that there are no disputes between both the parties.
5. This Court had gone through the complaint lodged pursuant to which the case is registered. Though, some of the offences are not compoundable, after going through the contents of complaint, 3 affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant as also Joint Memo dated 02.09.2022, it is felt that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be a futile exercise. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to compound the offences, in the interest of both the parties and continuation of criminal proceedings, is not warranted.
6. At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to the expression of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & another1 in the context of quashing an offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., which reads thus:
"(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role.
Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above....."
7. In the present case, the compromise is voluntary, in the interest of both the parties and therefore permission is granted to withdraw the complaint and compound the offences. Accordingly, 1 2014(6) SCC 466 4 compromise is recorded in terms of the Joint Memo dated 02.09.2022 filed along with I.A.No.4 of 2022 and these applications are ordered accordingly.
Crl.P.No.6199 of 2022
In view of the orders passed by this Court in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2022, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.107 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Learned XI District Judge-cum-Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, registered against the petitioner/accused are quashed.
Registry is directed to annex a copy of Joint Memo dated 02.09.2022 to this order.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 07.09.2022 IS 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2022 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.6199 OF 2022 Date: 07.09.2022 IS