Allowed

Kotla Appalanaidu v. the State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Dec 2023CRLRC/915/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision to quash conviction in rape case. Court relied on inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to uphold a post-trial compromise between the accused and de facto complainant, who had married and had children, deeming the proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision case allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted of charges under Sections 376 and 417 IPC; fine refunded.

Kotla Appalanaidu Vs the State of A.P. — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 915 OF 2011

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support^{oftheCriminalRevision} Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this^memorandum of CrI.R.C. to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment^{inCrl.A.No.182of2009,} dated 08.04.2011 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, confirming the Judgment in S.C.No.17 of 2009, dated 09.11.2009 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kotia Appalanaidu, S/o Pydithalli, 21 years, Kapu by Case, Arjunavalasa Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam^District.

¶10

...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶13

...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

¶14

Kotia Ramanamm, W/o. Appalanaidu, Aged about 21 yrs., Kopu by caste, Arjunavalasan Village, Ranasthalam Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

¶15

(R2 is impeaded as per court order dated 21.12.2023^{inI.A.No.02of} 2023 in Crl.R.C.No.915of 2011)

¶16

...Respondent No.2/ Defacto complaint

¶17

I A. NO: 2 OF 2011fCRLRCMP: NO: 1373 OF 2011)

¶18

Petition under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support^{ofthepetition,theHigh} Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the^{sentencespassedby} the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam^{inS.C.No.17of2009} dated 09-11-2009 as confirmed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Srikakulam, dated 08-04-2011 in CrI.A.No.^182of2009and release the petitioner on bail, pending CrI.RC.

¶19

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 320(2) r/w 482 of Cr.P.C praying^that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to perrnit the defacto complaint to withdraw this petition CrI. RC No. 915 of 2011 Against the CrI. A^{No.182of2009under} Section 376, 511 of IPC, compromise.

¶21

lA NO: 4 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 320(6) r/w 482 of Cr.P.C praying^that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner in CrI.^{RCNo.915of2011} Against the Crl. A No. 182 of 26o9 under the Section,^{376,511ofIPCand} compromise.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

The Court made the following Common Order:

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶27

I.A.N0.3 86 4 of 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.915 of 2011

¶28

COMMON ORDER;

¶29

Assailing the judgment dated 08.04.2011 in Crl.A.No.l82 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional^District 86 Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakulam, confirming the^conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dated 09.11.2009 in S.C.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned^Principal Assistant Session Judge, Srikakulam for the charges under section 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter^referred to as IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C. ) 2. The revision case was admitted on 18.04.2011 and that the petitioner was granted bail on 25.04.2011. 3. Pending criminal revision case, I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4^of2023 were filed by the petitioner and de facto complainant. 4. The petitioner was arrayed as accused in Cr.No.22 of 2008 of J.R.Puram Police Station for the offences under^Section 376, 417 and 420 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition^Act

¶30

¶31

and police laid the charge sheet and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, vide P.R.C.No.42^of2008on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate^{ofFirstClass,} Srikakulam, and after committal, it is numbered as^S.C.No.17 of 2009 on the file of Court of learned Principal Assistant Session Judge, Srikakulam and the trial was conducted^and found the accused guilty of the charges under Section^376and 417 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment^for five (5) years and also pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in^{defaulttosuffer} simple imprisonment for two (2) months, for the charge^under section 376 of IPC and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months and also pay a fine^ofRs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1)^month,for the charge under section 417 of IPC. Both the sentences^shall run concurrently.

¶32

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed^by the Trial Court, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.l82 of 2009, before the Court of learned II^Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakulam and the same

¶33

was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court^as there are no merits in the appeal.

¶34

¶35

Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court,^the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused and when it is pending for consideration^and while hearing the revision, the petitioner/accused and 2^^ respondent/de facto complainant are present before^theCourt.

¶36

The de facto complainant was impleaded as 2*^^ respondent in the present revision, vide orders dated 21.12.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2023.

¶37

I.A.No.3 of 2023 is filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. by the de facto complainant/2*1'^ respondent, seeking^torecordthe compromise and compound the offence against the petitioner/accused. The accused and de facto complainant produced their respective identity proofs, they were^identified by the learned counsel on both sides and they jointly^fileda compromise petition stating that they got married; that living together for the past twelve years as husband and wife; that they blessed with two children; that due to lack of knowledge, they could not inform the same to the Hon’ble Court;^thatifthe petitioner sent to the jail, the entire family will^standonthe road and the petitioner is the only bread winner of the family. 9. I.A.No.4 of 2023 is jointly filed by the de facto complainant and petitioner/accused seeking permission^ofthe

¶38

¶39

Court to compound the offence under Section 376 and^417of IPC.

¶40

Now the question come up for consideration is; whether the petition filed by the petitioner and 2^^ respondent^canbe permitted to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which is inherent power to the High Court to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice and to prevent^theabuse of process of Court.

¶41

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. conferred powers on the High Court to exercise inherent powers, and said section^reads as follows:

¶42

“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process^of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”.

¶43

Generally, Section 482 Cr.P.C used to invoke to quash^the criminal proceedings including F.I.R. or complaint in appropriate cases. The decision to invoke Section 482^Cr.P.C.in a criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

¶44

In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court in reference to the judgment

¶45

¶46

¶47

of Hon’ble Supreme Court in between Shiji @ Pappu v.

¶48

Radhika^, wherein at paragraph No. 17 held as follows:

¶49

“13. It is manifest that simply because an offence^is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of^its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C.”

¶50

Herein this case, whether invoking provisions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required in an offence under^Section

¶51

(2011) 10 see 705

¶52

¶53

376 of IPC, which is not compoundable. The petitioner^aswell as 2^^ respondent/de facto complainant categorically^statedthat that they got married and living together for the past^twelve years as husband and wife and blessed with two children and the petitioner is the only bread winner of the family^and as such, they intend to compromise the matter and the 2^^ respondent, who is de facto complainant came forward for recording the compromise.

¶54

The offence allegedly committed by the accused in the year, 2008 against the 2^^ respondent and now more than fifteen (15) years have been lapsed from the date of the alleged offence. Furthermore, this Court cannot shut its eyes^on the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the petitioner and the de facto complainant. 16. 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.

¶55

¶56

This Court is conscious of the fact that the inherent power used under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is discretionaiy, sparingly and cautiously to prevent misuse and while using it should also be conscious. The HonTile Supreme Court and High Courts laid guidelines, when the inherent powers can be invoked, where there is an abuse of process of the^Courtorto meet the ends of justice the Court can invoke inherent jurisdiction.

¶57

.18. In this connection, it is also relevant to make a mention judgment of the Hon’bte Supreme court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, lAS^, wherein^had laid down the powers of the High Court under Section⁴⁸² Cr.P.C., which are as follows:

¶58

“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

¶59

2 2006 AIR sew 3990

¶60

¶61

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 m the section which merely recognizes and preserves 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.”

¶62

¶63

¶64

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 Punjab^, wherein at paragraph No.61^heldas

¶65

follows:

¶66

“61.The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the 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

¶67

3(2012) 10 see 303

¶68

¶69

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 dowiy, 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

¶70

¶71

¶72

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.”

¶73

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in K.Dhandapani v. State by the Inspector of Police^, categorically held that in the said circumstances mentioned therein had permitted for compounding of^anoffence under Section 376 of IPC as well as offence under the^Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The facts mentioned in the above said judgment are squarely applicable to the present case on hand.

¶74

Taking into consideration of the above authoritative pronouncements, in view of the joint memo filed by^therevision petitioner and the 2^^ respondent/de facto complainant^and affidavit filed with regard to the compromise between^theparties and having regard to the future of the children and not to disturb the happy family life of the petitioner and de facto complainant, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the

¶75

4 2022 see Online Sei056

¶76

¶77

present criminal revision case. Consequently, I.A.Nos.3^and4of 2023 are ordered.

¶78

Accordingly, the Criminal Revisions Case is allowed^and the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner,^vide judgment dated 09.11.2009 in S.C.No.17 of 2009 on the file of Court of learned Principal Assistant Session Judgej^Srikakulam, as confirmed in the judgment dated 08.04.2011 in Crl.A.No.l82 of 2009 on the file of Court of learned II Additional^Districtand Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakulam, are hereby set aside.^The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charges^under Section 376 and 417 of IPC. The fine amount paid by the accused, if any, shall be refunded to him.

¶79

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶80

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if^any,

¶81

shall stand closed.

¶82

SD/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶83

//TRUE COPY//

¶84

SEC N OFFICER

¶85

To District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakuiam. ’l The II Additional ^ i i .vn 2. The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Snkakularn. Visakhapatnam. (by SPEED PUb i)

¶86

1. The Superintendent, CentralJail rnPiiri 4 OneCCto Sri. Simhachalam Karukola, Advocate [ ] 5. Two CC to Sri. Public Prosecutor. High Court of^{AndhraPradeshat}

¶87

Amaravathi. [OUT]

¶88

Amaravathi. [OUT] High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi.

¶89

1. The Section Officer, Criminal Section 7. Three CD Copies

¶90

¶91

sree

¶92

compromise Complied with Memo (Along with Joint withdravvn as to the Addresses)

¶93

,/•
./
/
/
/

¶94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

Crl.R.C.No. 915

of2011

Between

Katla Ramanamm W/o Appalanaidu, Aged about 21 yrs.,Kopu by caste, Arjunavalasa Village, Ranasthalam Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

¶100

... Petitioner. / Defacto complaint and

¶101

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi. ... Respondent

¶102

2. Katla Appalanaidu,

¶103

Aged about 21 yrs.,l^ppu by caste, Arjunavalasa Village, Ranasthalam Mandalam, Srikakulam District. ... Accused

¶104

JOINT MEMO

¶105

It is submitted that I am the petitioner in this matter and I am the DEFACTO COMPLAINANT hence I know the fact of the case for the offence U/sec 376, 511 of Cr.P.C. in Crl. Appeal No. T82 of 2009 then the accused is preffed an Crl.R.C. before this Hpon’ble Court. 3. It is submitted that in fact the petitioner and the we were compromised before the village elders and they get married and with their relationship the defacto complaint blessed with two children but due to lack of knowledge we could not inform the same before this Hon’ble Court., Now we are leading life with the petitioner happily.

¶106

this

¶107

withdraw this complaint wanted to the defacto 4 It is submitted that now ion before this Hon’ble court for withdrawan case. Hence she is seeking permission

¶108

as comporomise. Hence this petition. be pleased to is Hon’ble Court may the Crl.A. It is therefore prayed that this - 915 of 2011 Against ACCPECT our Joint memo m Crl.R.C. other order or orders of IPC, and pass such under Section 376, 511 of the case. 182 of 2009 - in the circumstances deem fit and proper as this Hon’ble Court may

¶109

Amaravathi, • 21 -12-2023. Date

¶110

Eirfacto Compalinant

¶111

S A. H H
(L.y^
1

¶112

HIGH COURT DATED;21/12/2023

¶113

ORDER

¶114

CRLRC.No.915 of 2011