Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P.Sunil Another, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 2 January, 2024

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

                   I.A.NO.2, 3 & 4 of 2023
                           IN/AND
           CRIMINAL REVISION CASENo.1420 of 2009

COMMON ORDER:

Assailing the judgment dated 21.08.2009 in Crl.A.No.8 of

2009 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Sessions

Judge, Guntur, confirming the conviction passed against

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 by the judgment dated

10.12.2008 in S.C.No.532 of 2007 on the file of the Court of

learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopeta for

the offence under section 324 of IPC, but reduced the sentence

of imprisonment from three (3) years to one (1) year by

confirming the fine amount, the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and

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 24.08.2009 and the

sentence of imprisonment imposed against the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 was suspended, vide orders in

Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1959 of 2009.

3. Pending criminal revision case, I.A.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of

2023 were filed by the petitioners and de facto

complainant/P.W.1/2nd respondent herein.

4. Both the petitioners as well de facto complainant/P.W.1,

who was impleaded as 2nd respondent in the main revision vide

order in I.A.No.1 of 2023, appeared before this Court and

submitted that they are close relatives, with the intervention

and advice of their well wishers and relatives, they settled the

misunderstandings, got compromised the matter amicably and

they filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 to permit them to compound

the offence under Section 324 of IPC and record the

compromise.

5. The de facto complainant also filed I.A.No.4 of 2023

stating that he has no objection to consider the present criminal

revision case and acquit the petitioners for the offence under

Section 324 of IPC.

6. Both the parties were identified by their respective

counsel as well the Inspector of Police, Narasaraopeta Police

Station, appeared before this Court and identified the de facto

complainant/P.W.1 and both parties produced their respective

aadhar cards with regard to their proof of identity.

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.

12006 AIR SCW 3990

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 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

2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

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 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 and in view of the no objection memo filed by

the de facto complainant, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the petitioners as well 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

are permitted to compromise the matter and thereby, I.A.No.2, 3

and 4 of 2023 are ordered.

12. Having regard to above, the present Criminal Revision

Case is also allowed and the conviction and sentence passed

against the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3, vide judgment

dated 10.12.2008 in S.C.No.532 of 2007 on the file of the Court

of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopeta,

as confirmed the conviction in the judgment, dated 21.08.2009