Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy vs Jalour Singh And Ors. on 23 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
***
Crl.P.No.2768 of 2022
Between:
Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy, S/o.Damodar Reddy,
aged about 33 years, Plot No.22,
Nithya Avenue, Abdullapurmet, Rangareddy District,
Telangana.
... Petitioner
And
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Amaravati.
2. K.M.Gayatri, D/o.Late K.M.Ranganath,
Age 28 years, OCC:Pvt Employee,
R/o.G14 Sesha Sai Apartment, Puttaparthi,
Anantapur District.
... Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 23-11-2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
of the Judgment?
2
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
+ Crl.P.No.2768 of 2022
% Dated: 23-11-2022
Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy, S/o.Damodar Reddy,
aged about 33 years, Plot No.22,
Nithya Avenue, Abdullapurmet, Rangareddy District,
Telangana.
... Petitioner
And
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Amaravati.
2. K.M.Gayatri, D/o.Late K.M.Ranganath,
Age 28 years, OCC:Pvt Employee,
R/o.G14 Sesha Sai Apartment, Puttaparthi,
Anantapur District.
... Respondents
! Counsel for petitioner : Sri Ramani Annam
^Counsel for Respondent No. 1 : Public Prosecutor
^Counsel for Respondent No.2 : --
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2768 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner is Accused No.1 in C.C.No.16 of 2021 on
the file of the Junior Civil Judge/Judicial First Class Magistrate
at Puttaparthi, for offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 506 of
I.P.C read with Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The petitioner herein along with other accused in the
case had compromised the matter with the de facto complainant
and the trial Court on 26.06.2021 had acquitted all the accused
on the basis of the said compromise after noting that the
observation period is three months. Thereafter, the de facto
complainant had filed a memo stating that she was not willing to
compromise. On that basis, the trial Court by an order dated
20.07.2021 had reopened the case and posted it to 09.08.2021.
3. Aggrieved by the said reopening of the case, the
petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present
criminal petition. It may also be noted that accused Nos.4 and 5
had also approached this Court, by way of Crl.P.No.5710 of
2021 which was disposed of on 11.11.2022, directing the
petitioners to undergo trial while dispensing with their presence
in the course of the trial.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely
upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab and Another vs Jalour Singh and Ors., reported in
Civil Appeal No.522 of 2008 dated 18.01.2008 to contend that
the compromise recorded on 26.06.2021 cannot be set aside
except by approaching this Court, by way of a writ petition. The
relevant passage in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
is as follows:
12. It is true that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in
terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which
is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the
Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to
the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of
a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If
any party wants to challenge such an award based on
settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition
under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution,
that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise
or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the
Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the
respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order,
or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits,
if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The
question of challenging such an order in a petition
under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in
such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and
disposed of the appeal on merits.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also
submit that the memo that is said to have been filed by the
petitioner, withdrawing case, is not available in the Court
records and the order of the Magistrate which is based on the
memo has to be quashed.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits
that whatever actually filed was not a memo but was a petition.
7. The contention of the petitioner that in the normal
course, the award of Lok-Adalat can only be challenged by way
of a writ petition before this Court, in view of the Judgment cited
by the petitioner requires to be accepted.
8. However, the amendment to Section 320 of Cr.P.C
by way of A.P Amendment Act 11 of 2003 requires to be noted.
STATE AMENDMENT
Andhra Pradesh:- The following item and entries shall be
inserted.
Husband or relative of 498-A The women subjected to
Husband of a woman cruelty:
subjecting her to cruelty. Provided that a minimum
period of three months shall
elapse from the date of
request or application for
compromise before a Court
and the Court can accept a
request for compounding an
offence under section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, provided none of the
parties withdraw the case in
the intervening period. (A.P.
Act 11 of 2003, w.e.f.
01.08.2003, vide
G.O.Ms.No.95, Law (LA&J
Home(Courts-B),
dt.01.08.2003)
9. This amendment permits the compounding of an
offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C before the Magistrates'
Court. However, the said compounding of the offence is subject
to the condition that none of the parties to the compromise
withdraw the case in the intervening period.
10. This would mean that the Court upon an application
being made for compounding, would have to wait for three
months to elapse from the date of request or application for
compromise before the same is accepted or the Court can also
accept a request for compounding provided none of the parties
withdrawing the case in the intervening period.
11. In the circumstances, the requirement of law is that
an application for recording a compromise can be filed before
the Court and a period of three months would have to be
granted before the Court passes orders on the said compromise.
In the alternative, an application for compounding can also be
filed and the same can be accepted subject to the condition that
the compounding of the offence is completed only if none of the
parties withdraw their consent for the period of three months.
12. In the present case, the application for a
compromise was filed on 26.06.2021 and the same was said to
have been compounded under Section 320 of Cr.P.C on the
same day. However, the Magistrate also recorded that there
would be an observation period of three months. Subsequently
on 20.07.2021, the complainant/2nd respondent herein had
withdrawn from the said compromise.
13. In the circumstances, the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court would not be applicable in the present case and
the compromise/compounding would have to be treated as set
aside in view of the specific provisions of A.P.Amendment Act 11
of 2003.
14. In the circumstances, the matter would have to be
taken up for trial.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is closed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Criminal
Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
23.11.2022
RJS
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2768 of 2022
23.11.2022
RJS
