Quashed

Nandyala Satyanarayana Reddy, (A-1), v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Dec 2015CRLP/9796/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 506, 324 read with 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, following a voluntary settlement between the de facto complainant and the petitioners, citing precedent that Section 482 powers extend beyond compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

Criminall Petitions Nos. 13426 and 13427 of 2015 allowed; proceedings against petitioners in Crime No. 162 of 2013 quashed.

Nandyala Satyanarayana Reddy, (A-1), Vs The State of… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY Crl.P.M.P.No.13426 and 13427 of 2015 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.9796 of 2014

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1, A3, A14, A5 and A23 in Crime No.162 of 2013 on the file of the Station House Officer, Narasaraopet Rural Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 506, 324 read with 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act).

¶4

2. Crl.P.M.P.Nos.13426 and 13427 of 2015 are filed to permit second respondent–de facto complainant to compromise the matter with the petitioners.

¶5

3. The petitioners and second respondent are present. Sri K.V. Subba Reddy, learned counsel identified the petitioners. Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel identified the second respondent.

¶6

4. The second respondent in the open court submitted that he voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners at the advice of the village elders. He further submitted that nobody compelled or forced him to enter into compromise with the petitioners. The offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are non-compoundable whereas the offence under Section 506 IPC is compoundable.

¶7

5. In Shiji alias Pappu v Radhika^[1] , the Supreme Court held as under:

¶8

“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

¶9

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 noncompoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC.”

¶10

6. In Gian Singh v State of Punjab^[2] , the apex Court observed as under:

¶11

“………….. 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.”

¶12

7. Taking into consideration the factum of settlement arrived at between the parties, this court is of the view that even if the proceedings are allowed to continue, the second respondent may not support the case of the prosecution. No purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶13

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings.

¶14

9. In the result, Crl.P.M.P.Nos.13426 and 13427 of 2015 are

¶15

ordered. Consequently, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A1, A3, A14, A5 and A23 in Crime No.162 of 2013 on the file of the Station House Officer, Narasaraopet Rural Police Station, Guntur District. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.

¶16

__________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.

¶17

December 17, 2015.

¶18

¶19

[1] (2011) 10 SCC 705 [2] (2012) 10 SCC 303

Nandyala Satyanarayana Reddy, (A-1), v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandyala Satyanarayana Reddy, (A-1), v. The 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

Moguluru Bhaskara Rao, Vs The State of A.P

Ramireddy Sudhakar Reddy Vs The State of a.P.,rep.,Pp

Thirumal Saikumar Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Khaja Rayeesuddin, Vs The State of Telangana

Kannekati Sreenivasachary Vs The State of a.P.,rep.,Pp

Modigari Poli Setty Vs The State of a.P.,rep.,Pp