Unknown vs State Of
2022 Latest Caselaw 2383 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2383 AP
Judgement Date : 5 May, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Unknown vs State Of on 5 May, 2022

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

               Criminal Petition No. 12529 of 2013

ORDER:

1) The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the

investigation in Crime No. 139 of 2013 of A.Konduru P.S., Krishna

District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

448, 323, 509 read with 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST

(PoA) Act.

2) It may not be necessary for this Court to go into the merits

of the matter for the reason that subsequent to the registration of

the crime, the accused and informant have entered into a

compromise, which lead to filing of I.A. No. 2 of 2022 seeking

permission of the Court to compound the offence. The record also

shows that, accused as well as informant were present before the

Court. When examined, the Informant, by name, Chittapothula

Rangamma, categorically stated that she has settled disputes with

the accused and she has no objection for quashing the same. Even

the accused also stated that, they have settled the disputes with

the Informant.

3) The only question that fall for consideration is, whether this

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can compound the offence

punishable under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989?

4) The learned Public Prosecutor placed on record the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar V. State of

Madhya Pradesh1. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant

paragraphs, which is as under:

"10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extra- ordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.

16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."

5) In view of the judgment referred to above and having regard

to the fact that the dispute between the parties is purely private

and is not committed on account of the caste of the victim; as

parties have entered into a compromise; that the informant herself

2021 SCC Online SC 966

is not interested in prosecuting the matter, this Court is of the

view that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of

process of law. Further, no useful purpose would be served in

allowing the proceedings to go as informant herself is not

supporting the case.

6) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

proceedings in Crime No. 139 of 2013 registered for the offences