THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
I.A.Nos.1 of 2022 & 2 of 2022
in/and
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.226 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:-
The Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the
Judgment dated 04.03.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.257 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional
Sessions Judge, Guntur.
2. The petitioners herein are A.1 and A.2 in
C.C.No.427 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Ponnur, Guntur District. Vide judgment dated
28.06.2019, the learned Magistrate found the
petitioners/A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 326 r/w 34 I.P.C, accordingly convicted
them of the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine
of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for a period of one month. It was also observed that out of
total fine amount of Rs.4,000/-, a sum of Rs.3,000/- shall
be paid to PW.1 as compensation under Section 357
Cr.P.C.
3. Against the said conviction and sentence, the
petitioners/A.1 and A.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.257
of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions
Judge, Guntur, and vide judgment dated 04.03.2022, the
2
appellate Court, while confirming the conviction of the
petitioners/A.1 and A.2 and sentence of fine and default
sentence, imposed by the trial Court, modified the sentence
of imprisonment to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners/A.1 and A.2 preferred the present Criminal
Revision Case.
4. Pending the Criminal Revision Case, the defacto
complainant (P.W.1) filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 to implead
himself as 2nd respondent in the Criminal Revision Case
and the same is ordered.
5. 2nd respondent/defacto complainant also filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 seeking to permit him to compromise the proceedings as against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 and consequently to set aside the conviction and sentence, as imposed by the trial Court and modified by the appellate Court, as stated supra, stating that he has no objection to allow the Criminal Revision Case, in view of the compromise arrived at, between the parties by way of Joint Memo signed by the parties, filed along with the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent-State and the learned counsel for 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.
3
7. It is stated in the joint memo signed by both the parties filed along with I.A.No.2 of 2022 that at the intervention of family members, both the petitioners and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant settled their dispute amicably. It is further stated that the defacto complainant, who is the father 1st petitioner and grandfather of 2nd petitioner, is a senior citizen and unable to do his regular work and suffering from old age ailments. It is further stated that since two years, the petitioners and the defacto complainant are residing under one roof and the petitioners are looking after his welfare.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh1. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
"19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society;1
2021 SCC Online SC 834 4
(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."
9. The petitioners and de facto complainant are present before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. In the case on hand, the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are daughter and granddaughter of 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. It is stated that all of them are residing under one roof and the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are looking after 2nd respondent/complainant, who is unable to do his regular work and suffering from old age ailments. Having regard to the relationship between the parties and the post-conviction conduct of the accused, and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances and the compromise arrived at, between the parties, this Court feels it proper to record the compromise.
10. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in the judgment dated 28.06.2019 in C.C.No.427 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, Guntur District, as modified by the appellate Court in its judgment dated 04.03.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.257 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, are set aside. The petitioners/A.1 and A.2 5 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 IPC and accordingly acquitted of the said offence.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case and the I.As. are allowed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 04.07.2022.
Pab/DRK 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY I.A.Nos.1 of 2022 & 2 of 2022 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.226 OF 2022 04.07.2022 Pab 7