Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Palleti Raghava Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 2022
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5308 of 2021
ORDER:-
The petitioner is alleged to be accused no.1 in C.C.No.2/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa District for the offences punishable u/Sec.420, 468, 471 IPC, on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent alleging that the defacto complainant sold away her land to some third parties, got registered the lands on their names, to get pass books of the above lands, when she approached VRO, came to know that her land was already got registered on the name of A1 and A1 colluded with the remaining accused i.e. Sub- Registrar, Vempalli and staff, created fake agreement as if not only she got registered the land of her but also a house which is no way concerned to her on the name of A1. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this court to quash the proceedings, under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
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 proceeding initiated against the petitioner in the above said case number, this Court directed for appearance of both the parties and the Station House Officer of Vempalli Police Station or any responsible Officer from the said Police Station to identify the parties, on 23.3.2022.
3. As directed by this Court, today i.e. on 23.3.2022 both parties present in person and the Station House Officer, Vempalli, Police Station appeared before this Court, the identity of the parties has been verified. The defacto complainant i.e. 2nd respondent submitted that recently they 2 have settled the issue before the elders and she has no interest to prosecute the accused and she has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A1 as well as learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both parties entered into a compromise by the intervention of elders and 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 the proceedings in C.C.No.2/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula.
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 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 2 (2012) 12 SCC 401 3 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 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."
8. In view of the above observations laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another4, with regard to 3 Shiji V.Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101 4 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 and the proceedings in C.C.No.2/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa District, is hereby quashed against the petitioner.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 23.3.2022 RD 4 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL PETITION No.5308 of 2021 Dated 23.3.2022 RD