Hon'ble Single Judge allowed miscellaneous petitions to quash pending criminal proceedings based on a voluntary joint compromise memo, deeming further litigation futile despite the non-compoundable nature of certain charges.
P.R.C.No.45 of 2018 is quashed; permission granted to compound the offence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATHI HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.1698 OF 2020
Janjanam Lakshmi Srinivasa Rao and another … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor and another. … Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Mr.C.Venkat Counsel for the 1st respondent : The Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the 2nd respondent : Mr.M.Solomon Raju
ORDER :
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022
These miscellaneous petitions are filed under Sections 320(2), 320(6) 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.45 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
The petitioner / 2nd respondent- de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the respondents 2 and 3/Accused Nos.1 and 2 before the Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada City, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 376(2)(f) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code(for short ‘I.P.C.’) and the said case is now pending before the trial Court.
The respondents 2 and 3/Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner/ 2nd 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.
2
A joint memo of compromise dated 28.06.2022 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 Nos.1 and 2 voluntarily entered into compromise, settled the matter outside the Court and that there are no disputes between both the parties.
This Court had gone through the complaint lodged pursuant to which the case is registered. Strictly speaking, the offence under Section 376 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 28.06.2022, 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. As per L.W.14-Medical Officer, it would also appear that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. 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.
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
3
Punjab & another1 in the context of quashing an offence under
Section 307 of I.P.C., which reads thus:
“ (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement 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……..”
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 28.06.2022 filed along with the petition and the petitions are ordered.
Crl.P.No.1698 of 2020
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.45 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijaywada, registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is quashed
Registry is directed to annex a copy of joint compromise memo dated 28.06.2022 to this order.
1 2014 (6) SCC 466
4
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date : 22-07-2022. BLV
5
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.1698 OF
2020
Dt: 22.07.2022
BLV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. upon a voluntary compromise in a case involving non-compoundable sections 376 and 498-A IPC.
Whether continuation of the trial is warranted once the parties have settled the matter via a joint compromise memo.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & anotherReferred¶15
2014 (6) SCC 466 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Janjanam Lakshmi Srinivasa Rao
The State of Andhra Pradesh
NINALA JAYASURYA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
