Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Order vs 482 Of The Code Or By This Court ... on 8 February, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1024 of 2019
ORDER: -
The petitioner is alleged to be accused in Sessions Case
No.170/2016 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge,
Pithapuram, East Godavari District registered under sections 376,
420 and 493 of Indian Penal Code 1860 [for short IPC], on the
complaint given by the complainant. The learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Pithapuram acquitted the accused for the offences punishable
u/sec.376 and 420 IPC and convicted the accused for the offence
punishable u/sec.493 IPC. For which the petitioner herein preferred
appeal before the XII Additional Sessions Judge, Pithapuram. The XII
Additional Sessions Judge, Pithapuram dismissed the said appeal
vide order dated 19.9.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
approached this court to set aside the orders.
2. After issuing notice, on 07.01.2022, 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
acquit the petitioner/accused, this Court directed for appearance of
both the parties, on 08.02.2022.
3. As directed by this Court on 08.02.2022 both the parties present at
their respective counsel office (by virtual mode), the identity of the parties
has been verified virtually. The defacto complainant therein submitted
that at the intervention of elders, they have settled the disputes and
came to an understanding and as such, the complainant has no
objection to compound the case against the petitioner herein and to allow
2
the revision case by setting aside the impugned judgments in the present
revision case.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused as well
as learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the
intervention of elders, they have settled the disputes and came to an
understanding and as such, the complainant has no objection to
compound the case against the petitioner herein and to allow the revision
case by setting aside the impugned judgments in the present revision
case and in view of the settlement, a joint memo has been filed, thereby
sought to allow the criminal revision case by setting aside the impugned
judgments in the present revision case.
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
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303
(2012) 12 SCC 401
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 -
"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."
Shiji V.Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101
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 case is allowed and the calendar
and judgment in Sessions Case No.170/2016 dated 10.01.2017 on the
file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pithapuram which was confirmed in
Crl.A.No.43/2017 dated 19.9.2019 on the file of the XII Additional
Sessions Judge, Pithapuram, is set aside and accordingly, the
petitioner/accused herein is acquitted.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 08.02.2022
RD
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1024 of 2019
Dated 08.02.2022
RD
