Telangana High Court
Shaik Nayeem, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
I.A.No.2 OF 2022
AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.456 of 2009
ORDER:
This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401
Cr.PC challenging the judgment dated 18.03.2009 in Criminal Appeal
No.18 of 2009 passed by the Court of the V Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, confirming the judgment
dated 31.12.2008 in C.C.No.293 of 2003 on the file of the Court of
the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein
and whereby the petitioner herein was convicted for the offence
under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default
of payment of the fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for two
months.
2 Petitioner and the de-facto complainant are present. Sri
C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel identified the petitioner-accused
and Sri Yellapragada Hyma Kumar, learned counsel identified the de-
facto complainant in the open court.
3 The de-facto complainant submitted that they settled the
matter outside the Court at the advice of elders and they are living
together and requested the Court to record the compromise and
acquit the petitioner.
4 In Shiji alias Pappu v Radhika1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as under:
"It is manifest that simply because an offence is not
compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the
High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC.
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 the one hand and the exercise of
power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482
CrPC 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 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC."
5 In Gian Singh v State of Punjab2, the apex Court observed
as under:
".............. 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."
6 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in
view of the submissions made by the de-facto complainant that they
are living together, and also having regard to the principle enunciated
in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that it is a fit
1 (2011) 10 SCC 705
2 (2012) 10 SCC 303
case to permit the parties to compound the offence and accordingly
acquit the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
7 In the result, I.A.No.2 is ordered. The Criminal Revision Case is
allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against
the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.293 of 2003 on the file of the Court
of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as
confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2009 passed by the Court of
the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court),
Hyderabad, and, consequently, he is acquitted for the offence under
Section 498-A of IPC. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the
criminal revision case, shall stand closed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 03.08.2022.
Kvsn
