Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Azmeera Jamla, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 8 January, 2024

                   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

               CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.510 of 2007


ORDER:

The present criminal revision case is filed under Section 397

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

petitioner/accused, assailing the judgment dated 09.04.2007 passed

in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2006 on the file of the Special Sessions

Judge under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-X Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, wherein the learned Judge

has dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence

imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence

punishable under Section 354 I.P.C in the judgment dated 30.12.2005

in S.C.No.168 of 2005 passed by the learned Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

2. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused

filed a joint memo along with a copy of Aadhaar card of the

petitioner and the complainant by name Ajmira Nagamma stating that

as per the compromise arrived at between the parties, the matter is

settled out of court amicably.

3. The de facto complainant by name Ajmira Nagamma, who is

present before this court, is identified by constable(PC 4056) of

Mylavaram Police Station. She stated that as per the advise of elders

of their community and to maintain peace in the locality, they have

entered into compromise. She further stated that she has no

objection to withdraw the case filed against the petitioner/accused

herein, who is more than 60 years old.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner as well as the de facto complainant can be permitted to compromise the non-compoundable offence under Section 354 IPC by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which is inherent power to the High Court to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of Court?"

5. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. conferred powers on the High Court to

exercise inherent powers, and said section reads as follows:

"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice".

6. Generally, Section 482 Cr.P.C used to invoke to quash the

criminal proceedings including F.I.R. or complaint in appropriate

cases. The decision to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a criminal revision

under Section 397 Cr.P.C. will depend on the facts and circumstances

of each case.

7. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner

brought to the notice of this Court judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in between Shiji @ Pappu v. Radhika1, wherein at paragraph

No.17 held as follows:

"13.It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C."

8. Here, in this case, whether invoking provisions under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. is required in an offence under Section 354 IPC, which

is not compoundable. The petitioner as well as the de facto

complainant categorically stated that at the intervention of elders

and well wishers of the family, to maintain peace and tranquility in

their locality and also in their respective families, they intend to

compromise the matter and the de facto complainant came forward

for recording the compromise. On examination, she stated that she

voluntarily came forward to compromise the matter with the

petitioner/accused and she has no objection to set aside the

conviction and sentence recorded against him. Moreover, the offence

(2011) 10 SCC 705

allegedly committed by the accused on 23.06.2004 and now more

than nineteen years have lapsed from the date of the alleged

offence.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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, IAS2, wherein, stated the

powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 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

2006 AIR SCW 3990

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."

12. 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 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab3, 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

(2012) 10 SCC 303

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 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."

13. Taking into consideration of the above authoritative

pronouncements and in view of the joint memo filed by the revision

petitioner and the de facto complainant, this Court deems it

appropriate to allow the present criminal revision case.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting

aside the conviction and sentence recorded in the judgment dated

30.12.2005 in S.C.No.168 of 2005 passed by the learned Principal

Assistant Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, as confirmed in judgment

dated 09.04.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2006 passed by

the learned Special Sessions Judge under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-X

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and

thereby the petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charge under