Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Vanamadi Siva Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 May, 2023

Author: Ninala Jayasurya

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATHI

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

  I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.7689 OF 2021

Vanamadi Siva Prasad & another
                                                   ... Petitioners
      Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh
Represented by its Public Prosecutor and another.
                                                ... Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners     : Mr.S.R.Sanku

Counsel for the 1st respondent : The Assistant Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the 2nd respondent : Mr.A.Sai Naveen

ORDER:

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 These miscellaneous petitions are filed under Sections 320 (2) & (6) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking permission to record compromise, compound the offences and to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1888 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kakinada.

The de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the accused Nos.1 and 2 before the II Town(L&O) Police Station, East Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Sections 354- A(1)(I), 354-D(1)(I), 417, 509, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal 2 Code(for short 'I.P.C.') and the said case is now pending before the trial Court.

The Accused Nos.1 & 2 and de facto complainant are present and they are identified by their respective counsels and produced Photostat copies of Aadhar cards to prove their identity.

A joint memo of compromise 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 de facto complainant and Accused voluntarily entered into compromise, settled the matter in the presence of elders of both sides and that there are no disputes between both the parties.

This Court had gone through the complaint lodged pursuant to which the case is registered. Though, the offences under Sections 354-A(1)(I), 354-D(1)(I), 417, 509, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C., are not compoundable, after going through the contents of complaint, affidavit filed by the de facto complainant as also Joint Memo, it is felt that continuation of proceedings against A1 and A2 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.

3

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........"

In the present case, the compromise is voluntary, in the interest of both the parties and therefore permission is granted to compound the offence. Accordingly, compromise is recorded in terms of the joint memo filed along with the petition and the petitions are ordered.

1 2014 (6) SCC 466 4 Crl.P.No.7689 of 2021 In view of the orders passed by this Court in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the C.C.No.1888 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District, registered against the petitioners/A1 and A2 is quashed.

Registry is directed to annex a copy of joint compromise memo to this order.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date : 11-05-2023.

BLV 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.7689 OF 2021 Dt: 11.05.2023 BLV