Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Shaik Saida, 2 Others, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 1 February, 2024

               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

                    I.A.NO.1 & 2 of 2024
                          IN/AND
           CRIMINAL REVISION CASENo.1528 of 2008

COMMON ORDER:

Assailing the judgment dated 15.10.2008 in Crl.A.No.6 of

2007 on the file of the Court of learned X Additional District &

Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet, confirming the

conviction imposed against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3by

the judgment dated 11.12.2006 in C.C.No.273 of 2002 on the

file of the Court of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Gurajala, for the offence under section 498 (A) of

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), but

modified and reduced the sentence of imprisonment from

fourteen (14) months to twelve (12) months simple

imprisonment, the petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 filed the

present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as

"Cr.P.C.")

2. The revision case was admitted on 18.10.2008 and the

sentence of imprisonment imposed against the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 was suspended, vide orders in

Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2085 of 2008.

3. Pending criminal revision case, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024

were filed by the petitioners and defacto complainant/P.W.1.

Petitioner No.1 is husband and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are

parents-in-law of de facto complainant/P.W.1.

4. I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed to implead the Shaik Ramjan

Bee/de facto complainant/P.W.1 as 2nd respondent in the main

revision to compromise the matter.

5. I.A.No.2 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners and Shaik

Ramjan Bee/de facto complainant/P.W.1 stating that they are

willing to compromise the matter and they also filed joint

compromise memo.

6. Petitioners and de facto complainant/P.W.1 appeared

before this Court and submitted that they have compromised

the matter and also produced copy of their Aadhar cards and

they were identified by their respective counsel.

7. Now, it is needless to mention that the High Court has to

exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the

circumstances so warrants such an invocation. Section 482

Cr.P.C. is very clear that it may be used its inherent power to

meet the ends of justice or found to continue the proceedings

would be abuse of process of Court or otherwise to meet the

ends of justice to the parties.

8. This Court is conscious of the fact that the inherent

power used under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is discretionary,

sparingly and cautiously to prevent misuse and while using it

should also be conscious. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and High

Courts laid guidelines, when the inherent powers can be

invoked, where there is an abuse of process of the Court or to

meet the ends of justice the Court can invoke inherent

jurisdiction.

9. In this connection, it is also relevant to make a mention

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Central Bureau of

Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS1, wherein had

laiddown the powers of the High Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C., which are as follows:

"Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would

12006 AIR SCW 3990

govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist." restored powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

10. In view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court as well this Court also perused another

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in between Gian

Singh v. State of Punjab2, wherein at paragraph No.61 held as

follows:

"61.The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. 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

2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

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."

11. Taking into consideration of the above authoritative

pronouncements, having regard to the above circumstances and

after hearing both the parties and both the learned counsel, this

Court is of the considered opinion that de facto

complainant/P.W.1 is allowed to implead as party/respondent

No.2 in the main revision and thereby I.A.No.1 of 2024 is

ordered. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2024 is also ordered by

permitting them to compromise the matter.

12. In the result, the present Criminal Revision Case is

allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, vide judgment dated 11.12.2006

in C.C.No.273 of 2002 on the file of the Court of learned I