Sessions Judge vs Judge
2022 Latest Caselaw 3282 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3282 AP
Judgement Date : 4 July, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sessions Judge vs Judge on 4 July, 2022

 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.

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;

2021 SCC Online SC 834

(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