Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Korlapu Sarada vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 February, 2021
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI
*****
Criminal Petition No.1045 of 2021
1. Korlapu Sarada & Anr. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati,
Guntur District & Anr.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 19-02-2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
1 Whether Reporters of Local ---
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may Yes
be marked to Law Reports/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship Yes
wish to see the fair copy of the
Judgment?
_________________________________________
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
+ Criminal Petition No.1045 of 2021
% 19-02-2021
# 1. Korlapu Sarada & Anr.
... Petitioners
Vs.
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati,
Guntur District & Anr.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K. Chidambaram
Counsel for Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor
Counsel for Respondent No.2: None
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
Nil.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1045 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed assailing the
order dated 30.09.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.385 of 2019 in
Crl.A.No.265 of 2016 on the file of the learned VI Additional
District and Sessions Judge - Cum - Mahila Court,
Visakhapatnam, whereby the petition filed under Section 320
Cr.P.C to permit the petitioners to compound the offences and
acquit the petitioners under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C was dismissed.
2. The petitioners are originally accused in C.C.1298 of 2011
on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. They were tried for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 326 IPC and under Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After trial, in the final
adjudication of the said case, they were found guilty for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 326 IPC only and
accordingly they were convicted for the said offences. They have
been sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the said offences.
They were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction for the offences
under Sections 498-A and 326 IPC, the petitioners preferred
appeal in Crl.A.No.265 of 2016 on the file of the learned
VI Additional District and Sessions Judge - Cum - Mahila Court,
Visakhapatnam. The said appeal is now pending hearing before the
said Court.
4. While so, the petitioners have filed a petition under Section
320 Cr.P.C before the appellate Court to permit them to compound
the offence and to acquit them under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.
The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order on
the ground that there is no provision to permit the petitioners to
compound the said offence.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C is filed before this Court assailing the legality and validity of
the impugned order.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners were tried for the offence
punishable under Section 326 IPC and they were also convicted for
the said offence and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
the said offence. Section 320 Cr.P.C is the relevant provision under
which the accused can seek permission of the Court to compound
the offence. Section 320 of the Code spells out a public policy with
regard to the compounding of offences. To enable the accused and
the de facto complainant/complainant to have harmonious
settlement of the dispute relating to certain offences which are not
grave in nature and which do not have adverse effect on the public
peace in the society, the Legislature thought it fit to permit the
parties to compound certain offences. Section 320 catalogues the
offences punishable under the I.P.C. which may be compounded by
the Court without permission of the Court and composition of
certain offences with the permission of the Court. Clause (5) of
Section 320 mandates that when the accused has been convicted
and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be
allowed without the leave of the Court before which the appeal is to
be heard. Therefore, it is clear that the accused can be allowed to
compound the offence even before the appellate Court with the
leave of the Court. The appellate Court has to exercise its
discretion to grant leave to compound the offence after considering
the gravity of the offence and other relevant factors. However, the
said offence must be a compoundable offence. Clause (1) of
Section 320 Cr.P.C deals with compounding of offences without
permission of the Court and Clause (2) thereof deals with
compounding of offences with the permission of the Court. Certain
offences are enumerated therein in Clause (1) of Section 320
Cr.P.C and Clause (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C which are
compoundable without permission of the Court and with the
permission of the Court. Section 326 IPC is not enumerated either
in Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Therefore,
it is obvious that the offence under Section 326 IPC is
a non-compoundable offence. Now it is relevant to note Clause (9)
of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:
"No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this
section."
8. So, it clearly indicates that the trial Court or the appellate
Court can only permit or entertain request for compounding of
offences which are compoundable offences only which are
enumerated in Clauses (1) and (2) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. So it is
not within the competence of the trial Court or the appellate Court
to permit compounding of offences which are non-compoundable
and which are not enumerated in Clauses (1) and (2) of Section
320 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, both the trial Court and the appellate
Court has no jurisdiction to permit the petitioners to compound
the offence under Section 326 IPC which is a non-compoundable
offence and to acquit them under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C for the said
offence.
9. So, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the
petition on the ground that there is no provision to permit the
petitioners to compound the said offence. Therefore, the impugned
order is perfectly sustainable under law and it does not suffer from
any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court, in exercise
of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the said
order.
10. Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit and it is
dismissed accordingly.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal
Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 19-02-2021
AKN
Note:-
L.R. Copy to be marked.
(B/o)
AKN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1045 of 2021
Date: 19-02-2021
AKN
