Allowed

Janjanam Lakshmi Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jul 2022CRLP/1693/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed miscellaneous petitions filed under CrPC Sections 320(2) and 482 seeking to compound a Section 307 IPC offence and quash related proceedings. Based on a valid joint compromise memo and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the court held that continuation was futile and granted the quash order.

What did the court decide?

Compounding of the offence permitted under a joint memo; Criminal Petition No.1693 of 2020 allowed and P.R.C.No.22 of 2018 quashed.

Janjanam Lakshmi Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra… — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATHI HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶2

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.1693 OF 2020

¶3

Janjanam Lakshmi Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor and another. … Respondents

¶6

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.C.Venkat Counsel for the 1^st respondent : The Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the 2^nd respondent : Mr.M.Solomon Raju

¶7

ORDER :

¶8

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022

¶9

These miscellaneous petitions are filed under Sections 320(2), 320(2) r/w Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking permission to record compromise, compound the offences and to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.22 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

¶10

The petitioner / 2^nd respondent- de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the respondent 2 /Accused before the Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada City, for the offences punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code(for short ‘I.P.C.’) and the said case is now pending before the trial Court.

¶11

The respondent 2 /Accused and the petitioner/ 2^nd respondent- de facto complainant are present and they are identified by their respective counsels and produced Photostat copies of Aadhar cards to prove their identity.

¶12

¶13

A joint memo of compromise dated 29.06.2022 is filed by the parties, when terms of joint memo of compromise are explained in Telugu language, they are admitted to be true and correct. It is submitted that the de facto complainant and Accused voluntarily entered into compromise, settled the matter outside the Court and that there are no disputes between both the parties.

¶14

This Court had gone through the complaint lodged pursuant to which the case is registered. Strictly speaking, the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., is not compoundable. However, after going through the contents of complaint, affidavit filed by the de facto complainant as also Joint Memo dated 29.06.2022, wherein it is stated that the divorce petition filed by both the parties vide F.C.O.P.No.1444 of 2018 was allowed by dissolving their marriage dated 29.05.2005 and the remaining cases were also settled before the Lok Adalat and further that they agreed not to file any further cases against each other and shall not interfere with the personal lives of each other, it is felt that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be a futile exercise. In the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to compound the offence, in the interest of both the parties and continuation of criminal proceedings, is not warranted.

¶15

At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & another¹ in the context of quashing an offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., which reads thus:

¶16

“ (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power

¶17

under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement

¶18

1 2014 (6) SCC 466

¶19

¶20

play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above……..”

¶21

In the present case, the compromise is voluntary in the interest of both the parties, and therefore permission is granted to compound the offence. Accordingly, compromise is recorded in terms of the joint memo dated 29.06.2022 filed along with the petition and the petitions are ordered.

¶22

Crl.P.No.1693 of 2020

¶23

In view of the orders passed by this Court in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the P.R.C.No.22 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijaywada, registered against the petitioner/accused is quashed.

¶24

Registry is directed to annex a copy of joint compromise memo dated 29.06.2022 to this order.

¶25

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶26

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶27

Date : 22-07-2022. BLV

¶28

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶30

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.1693 OF

¶31

2020

¶32

Dt: 22.07.2022

¶33

BLV

Janjanam Lakshmi Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janjanam Lakshmi Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P K Rajasekhar Rao Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd.

Simhadri Saiji Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K.P. Vara Prasad Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Janjanam Lakshmi Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondeti Rama Lakshmi Vs State of Ap

M/ s. Sri Subramanyam Auto Electrical works Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh