Allowed

Avirneni Satya Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Nov 2016CRLP/5196/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted compound under Section 320 Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court found the settlement reached outside court was in the interest of both parties with no adverse social impact, making it a fit case for compounding despite public nature of dowry cases.

What did the court decide?

Permission to compound offences under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act granted; second petition allowed.

Avirneni Satya Srinivas Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Crl.P.M.P.NO.18332 of 2016 IN/AND Crl.P.No.5196 of 2014

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

Crl.M.P.No.18332 of 2016 :

¶4

This petition is filed under Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking permission to compound the Crime No.6 of 2014 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Machilipatnam registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶5

All the petitioners and defacto complainant are present and they are identified by their respective counsels.

¶6

On enquiry the parties stated that they settled the issue outside the Court due to intervention of elders and well-wishers and they wanted to lead peaceful life. They specifically stated that the petitioner/husband in the main petition paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the wife and the respondent/wife acknowledged the receipt of the said amount.

¶7

In “ Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr .¹ ” the Apex Court held that depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however before exercising such power, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of crime and its social impact. It is further held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., could not be fittingly quashed even though victim or victim’s family

¶8

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶9

¶10

and offender have settled dispute. Such offences were not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly any compromise between victim and offender in relation to offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; could not provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.

¶11

By applying the principle laid down in the above judgment, since the settlement is in the interest of both petitioner/husband and respondent/wife and the said settlement has no social impact; I find that it is a fit case to permit the petitioner to compound the offences.

¶12

Accordingly, permission is accorded as sought for.

¶13

Crl.P.No.5196 of 2014 :

¶14

In view of the order passed in Crl.P.M.P.No.18332 of 2016, this petition is allowed. No costs.

¶15

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶16

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

21.11.2016 Ksp

Avirneni Satya Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avirneni Satya Srinivas 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

Gotta Jagannadha Rao Vs Yanaganti Bala Krishna

Md. Shoukath Ali , Pappu, Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Shoukath Ali , Pappu, Vs The State of Telangana

Yogesh Agarwal Vs Smt. Anchal Kumari Agarwal

Mohd. Afroz Khan , Muban , Mohd Afrose Vs The State of Telangana

Sandrapali Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana