Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kukkamudi Kotaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 May, 2022
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2935 of 2022
ORDER:-
The petitioners are alleged to be accused nos.2 and 4 in Crime No.134/2012 of Macherla Urban police station for the offence punishable u/Section 120-B, 468, 471, 420, 447, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and u/Sec.4 & 5 of A.P.Land Grabbing Act, 1982, on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent to the Macherla Urban police station, who in turn registered the same as a case in Cr.No.134/2012 for the above said offence against the petitioners and other accused. After investigation, police laid charge sheet against the petitioners and other accused and the same was numbered as C.C.No.01/2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of the offences punishable under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1918 (constituted u/Sec.11 of A.P.land Grabbing Act.) and the petitioners were convicted in the said C.C.. Assailing the same, the petitioners herein preferred criminal appeal vide Crl.Appeal No.307/2017 on the file of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur and the same is pending. The petitioners/A2 and A4 have filed suit in O.S.No.89/2012 on the file of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Macherla for permanent injunction against the complainant herein and due to intervention of elders the said O.S.No.89/2012 was referred to Lok Adalat and an award No.02/2020 dated 08.02.2020 was also passed with certain terms. By placing the same before the learned Prl. District & Sessions Judge, the petitioners herein filed a petition urging that they compromised between themselves i.e. petitioners and complainant, and to acquit them from the charges. But the said petition was returned stating that the Section 5 of the 2 A.P.Land Grabbing Prohibition Act is non-compoundable in nature. Hence this criminal petition.
2. After issuing notice, in view of the joint memo filed by both the parties stating that they have entered into a compromise and seeking permission to compound the offence and to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in the above said C.C., this Court directed for appearance of both the parties, on 04.5.2022.
3. As directed by this Court, today i.e. on 04.5.2022 both the parties present in person, the identity of the parties has been verified. The defacto complainant i.e. 1st respondent submitted that they have amicably settled the issue as per the settlement, the defacto complainant has no objection for the purpose of compounding the case initiated against the petitioners/A2 and A4 and now they are no more interested to proceed with the matter.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused as well as learned counsel appearing for R2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for R1-state.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a misunderstanding in relation to the money transaction and the parties having arrived at compromise, the defacto complainant not desires to proceed with the complaint and in view of the settlement, a joint memo has been filed, thereby sought for quashing of the conviction and sentences recorded in C.C.No.01/2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of the offences punishable under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1918 (constituted u/Sec.11 of A.P.land Grabbing Act.). 3
6. Learned counsel further relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another1, while adjudicating the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short Cr.P.C.] in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender, who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime, but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C., it was observed that -
"In a very recent judgment decided by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat2, this Court was again concerned with the question of quashment of an FIR alleging offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. The High Court refused to quash the criminal case under Section 482 of the Code. The question for consideration was that inasmuch as all those offences, except Section 420 IPC, were non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code, whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Bench elaborately considered the decision of this Court in Shiji3 and by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution quashed the criminal proceedings. It was held as under:- (Jayrajsinh' case, SCC paras-13-15) :-
"13. In the light of the principles mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2 - the Complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the appellant (Accused No. 3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of settlement in so far as the Appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is concerned.
14. In view of the same, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45 of 2011 registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable Under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the Appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned.
15. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above."
7. It is further held in the above judgment that -
"61. .......... 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 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 2 (2012) 12 SCC 401 3 Shiji V.Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101 4 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 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."
In another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in between Mafatlal & another vs. The State of Rajasthan4 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
Both the appellants have filed separate affidavits. Appellant no.2 has specifically stated before the High Court as also before this Court that she had left her parental home on her own free volition. The appellants are married since December 2006 and have been living happily. They have also been blessed with a son in the year 2014 who would now be 8 years old. No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Kidnapping would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under eighteen years of age if a female for the offence under Section 363 IPC. In the present case, the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will. Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the appellant no.2 the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant no.1 and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married appellant no.1 on her own free will without any influence being exercised by appellant no.1 4 Criminal appeal No.592 of 2022 5 Considering the over all facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be best secured by quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings that arise there from. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
8. In view of the above observations laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another5, with regard to the inherent power of the High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in relation to non-compoundable offences, and having carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the joint memo filed by the parties, permission is granted to compound the offence and compromise is recorded.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the conviction and sentences recorded in C.C.No.01/2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of the offences punishable under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1918 (constituted u/Sec.11 of A.P.Land Grabbing Act) and accordingly the petitioners/A2 and A4 are acquitted in C.C.No.01/2014 by setting aside the calendar and judgment dated 30.6.2017 in C.C.No.01/2014.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 04.5.2022 RD 5 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION No.2935 of 2022 Dated 04.5.2022 RD