Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kolla Gangadhara Rao, vs The State Of A.P., Rep.By Pp., on 5 July, 2024

APHC010284482008

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3367]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                FRIDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                       PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

                    I.A.NO.2 & 3 of 2023
                          IN/AND
          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1712 of 2008

Between:
Kolla Gangadhara Rao,                             ...PETITIONER

                                AND

The State Of A P Rep By Pp and Others        ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:
  1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):
  1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
  2. MULLA SOHAIL SHAREEF

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

Assailing the judgment dated 20.11.2008 in Crl.A.No.133

of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional Sessions

Judge (FTC) at Markapur, confirming the conviction and

sentence imposed against petitioner/accused No.1 by the

judgment dated 30.11.2007 in C.C.No.218 of 2002 on the file of

the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class at Giddalur, for the offence under section 498(A) of Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), the

petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case

under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code,

1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 24.11.2008 and the

sentence of imprisonment imposed against the

petitioner/accused No.1 was suspended, vide orders in

Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2359 of 2008.

3. Pending criminal revision case, I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2023

were filed by the petitioner and sons of de facto

complainant/P.W.1. Petitioner is husband of de facto

complainant/P.W.1.

4. I.A.No.1 of 2023 is filed to implead the sons of de facto

complainant/P.W.1 as respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the main

revision to compromise the matter and the same was ordered.

5. I.A.No.2 and 3 of 2023 are filed by the respondent Nos.2

and 3 as well petitioner along with joint memo stating that on

the advice of elders, they are willing to compromise the matter,

since de facto complainant, who is mother of respondent Nos.2

and 3 died on 04.02.2010 itself and petitioner is taking care of

their education, they are residing along with the petitioner and

now the 2nd respondent working as Police Constable and 3rd

respondent pursuing the Post Graduation in Dental Sciences

and they have no objection to consider the present revision.

6. Today petitioner as well sons of de facto

complainant/P.W.1 appeared before this Court and submitted

that they have compromised the matter, 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,sparinglyand 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 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

12006 AIR SCW 3990

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

2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

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 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and after

hearing both the parties and both the learned counsel, it is clear

in vivid terms that even though the petitioner and de facto

complainant/P.W.1 are resided separately due to disputes, after

death of de facto complainant, petitioner being father of

respondent Nos.2 and 3 has taken care of their education and

future, now they are residing under one roof, they became

majors, elder son is working as Police Constable, younger son is

pursuing Post Graduation in Dental Sciences, on the advice of

elders they have entered into the compromise and at this point

of time if the petitioner is sent to prison, the pursuing of

younger son's study will be put in stack, thereby, taking into