Kuppili Srivekara Rao, ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp And Anr.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 5188 AP

                   THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

                   CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2207 of 2016

ORDER:

1. The petitioner is alleged to be accused in C.C.No.756/2017 on

the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam for the offence u/Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act and the same was ended in conviction vide order

dated 21.6.2011 and the same was confirmed in Crl.Appeal

No.76/2011 on 17.6.2016 by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Visakhapatnam. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners

approached this court praying to set aside the same.

2. 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 set aside the order as mentioned supra

and to acquit the accused for the said offence, this Court directed for

appearance of both the parties.

3. On 14.12.2021 both the parties appeared before this Court, the

identity of the parties has been verified. The petitioner/accused issued

two demand drafts total worth Rs.5,00,000/- to R2 and R2 received the

same and accepted for compromise and for acquitting the

petitioner/accused. The complainant i.e. R2 submitted that the well

wishers and the elders on both sides was pleased to amicably settle the

dispute and therefore both the parties had settled the dispute and

requested to close the proceedings by recording the compromise.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused as well

as learned counsel appearing for R2 and learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for R1-State.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 acquitting the petitioner/accused by

recording the compromise.

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 -

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

(2012) 12 SCC 401

Shiji V.Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101

"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

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 revision is allowed by setting aside the

calendar and judgment dated 21.6.2011 in C.C.No.756/2017 on the file

of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the

offence u/Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act which was

confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.76/2011 on 17.6.2016 by the II Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, and the

petitioner/accused is acquitted for the said offence.

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Dated: 14.12.2021 RD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2207 of 2016

Dated: 14.12.2021

RD