Telangana High Court
Joganpally Devender Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 16 November, 2021
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
I.A.No.2 of 2020
IN/AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No.334 of 2012
COMMON ORDER:
Petitioners / A-1 to A-3 and respondent No.2 / defacto
complainant appeared before this Court. Both the parties filed
their Aadhar Cards in proof of their identity and their
respective counsel identified them. The 2nd respondent /
defacto complainant reported that she voluntarily agreed for
compromise and intended to compromise the matter.
Both the parties filed a Joint Memo vide I.A.No.2 of
2020 submitting that they settled the matter amicable
between them and as such respondent No.2 / defacto
complainant has no objection to quash the proceedings in
Crime No.535 of 2010 of Amberpet Police Station (P.R.C.No.9
of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad).
The case in Crime No.535 of 2010 of Amberpet Police
Station is registered for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC
/ ST (POA) Act, 1989, which was a non-compoundable
offence. However, as the parties reported that they voluntarily
entered into compromise and as per the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh in
Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011 decided by the Hon'ble Apex
Court on 25-10-2021, where it appears to the Court that the
offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is
primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged
offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the
victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings
would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can
exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar
lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of
a compromise/ settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the
underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or
diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished,
the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special
statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from
exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Considering the above judgment, as there are civil
disputes between the parties and the parties have amicably
settled the matter between them and were intending to
compromise the same it is considered fit to allow the petition
and quash the proceedings in Crime No.535 of 2010 of
Amberpet Police Station (P.R.C.No.9 of 2011 on the file of IV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad).
Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2020 is ordered and the
Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in
Crime No.535 of 2010 of Amberpet Police Station (P.R.C.No.9
of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad) in view of the compromise between
the parties.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal
Petition, shall stand closed.
_______________________
DR.G. RADHA RANI, J
November 16, 2021
PN
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
I.A.No.2 of 2020
IN/AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No.334 of 2012
November 16, 2021
PN
On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question,
although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or
where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the
victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of
the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On
similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a
compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of
the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question
goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute'
would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.
