Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Vallabhaneni Appa Rao vs P. Mallikarjuna Rao Another on 5 May, 2022

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1253 of 2016

ORDER:

Assailing the judgment dated 12.05.2016 in Crl.A.No.293

of 2015 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Krishna District at Vijayawada, confirming the conviction and

sentence imposed by judgment dated 30.09.2015 in C.C.No.754

of 2014 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, the

accused filed the above criminal revision case under Section 397

r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 19.05.2016 and

sentence was suspended on deposit of fine amount imposed by

the trial Court.

3. Pending criminal revision case, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022

were filed.

4. I.A.No.1 of 2022 is filed under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C.,

seeking to record compromise.

5. I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed under Section 320 (6) of Cr.P.C.,

seeking to permit the 1st respondent and revision petitioner to

enter into compromise as per the joint memo filed along with

compromise petition.

6. The 1st respondent herein filed C.C.No.754 of 2014 for the

offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 against the revision petitioner herein and

on contest, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and

to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he

shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three

months. Against the same, the revision petitioner filed

Crl.A.No.293 of 2015 and the same was dismissed confirming

the conviction and sentence referred supra. Assailing the same,

the present criminal revision case is filed.

7. Both parties are present in the Court and Sri

Y.Ramatirtha, learned counsel identified the revision petitioner

and Sri G.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel identified the 1st

respondent/complainant.

8. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another 1,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the inherent

powers of High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in quashing

the criminal proceedings against an offender, who has settled

the dispute with the victim of the crime, and the alleged crime is

not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. observed as

under:

"In a very recent judgment decided by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat (2012 (12) SCC 401), 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

2012 (10) SCC 303

for consideration was that inasmuch as all those offences, except Section 420 of 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 Shiji v. Radhika, (2011 (100 SCC 705) 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."

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."

9. In Saju P.R. vs. The State of Kerala2, the Hon'ble Apex

Court quashed criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement

between the accused and survivor, for doing justice to the

parties concerned.

10. Taking into consideration the above authoritative

pronouncements and in view of joint memo filed by revision

Crl A No.1740 of 2019

petitioner and 1st respondent and also affidavit filed with regard

to compromise between the parties, this Court deems it

appropriate to allow this criminal revision case.

11. In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed and the

conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment dated