Allowed

Gudem Mahipal Reddy v. Sri Pdtti Chandu Kumar

Telangana HC17 Mar 2022CRLP/10288/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal petitions filed by appellants including an MLA to quash conviction and proceedings arising from a private dispute. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that settlements in non-heinous, personal nature offences can justify quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C to secure ends of justice, preventing paralysis of administration when appeals are pending.

What did the court decide?

Criminal charges arising from C.C. No. 320 of 2015, judgment dated 10.12.2015, and Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2015 are quashed.

Gudem Mahipal Reddy Vs Sri Pdtti Chandu Kumar — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE^{SEVENTEENTHDAY OF N/ARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN}

¶5

CRIMINAL P ETITIO NO: 10 288 0F²⁰²¹

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gudem^{tr,4ahipal Reddy, S/o. SattiReddy,Aged about,55Years' Occ lr'4emberof} i*r]iiuii"" Allembly.'parancheiu^{con'strtu'ency/ R/o. H.No.6-3, Ram lr/andir} h'.,2;,"8h;s;th G;iii'dr6;;;tu^{iown and tr/anial,sangareddvDistrict-500231}

¶8

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

1' Sri Porti Chandu^{Kumar, S/o, P Sathya NarayanaAged about41 years,occ.} Eir.i*r., nio.^{FfuiNo frrr aalA,Srita park pride, Vaaanth Nagar, Kukkatpally,} Hyderabad

¶11

The State of^{Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor'High Court of} Judicature at HYderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

PetitionunderSection4S2olCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High court may} bepleasedtoquashtheoffencesarouseoutofC.C.No-320of2015onthefileof the Additional Judicial^{First class Magistrate, sangareddy culminating in} judgmentandconvictiondaledlotl2l2Ol5pendingvideCRLA.N0.l56of20l5 on the file of^{the lX Additional District andSessionsJudge, [t/edak at} Sangareddy.

¶14

t.A. NO :2OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the Highcourt may}

¶16

be^pleased to stay^{all further proceedingsin cRLA.No.156 of 2015 on the file of} the court of lX Additional^{District and Sessions Judge, Medak at sangareddy} and pass

¶17

l.A. NO: 3 OF 202'l

¶18

Between:

¶19

Sri Potti Chandu Kumar,^{Sio. P Sathya NarayanaAged about 41 years, Occ'} Business R/o. Flat^{No.lr/-84/A, Srila ParkPride,Vasanth Nagar, Kukkatpally,} Hyderabad.

¶20

.,...PETITIONER/DEFACTO^CON/PLAtNANT

¶21

1, The State of Telangana,^{Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Courtof Judicature} at Hyderabad

¶22

2.. Gudem Mahipal^{Reddy, S/o. Satti Reddy,Aged about 55 Years, Occ l'4ember} of Legislative A'ssembly,^{-PatancheruConstituency,./ R/o. H.No6-3, Ram Mandir} Ro;d, Bhagath Galii Patancheru^{Town and [r,4andal, Sangareddy District-} 500231

¶23

-.,.....RESPONDENTS/ACGUSED

¶24

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the Highcourtmay} be pleased to^{permit the petitioner to compound the offences arouseout of} c.c.No.320 of 2015 on the^{file of the AdditionalJudicial First class Magistrate,} Sangareddy culminating^{in judgment and convictiondaled 1O11212015pending} vide CRLA.No.156 of 2015 on the file^{of the Court of PrincipalDistrict and} Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶25

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2 021

¶26

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the lVemorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition,the High Courtmay} be pleased to.compound the offences arouse out^{of C.C.No.320of 2015 on the} file of the Addltional Judicial First Class, Magistrate,^{Sangareddy culminatingin}

¶27

.ludgment^{and conviction daled10t1212015 pendingvide cRLA.No.156of 20'15} on the file of the court^{of Principal District & sessions Judge, t/edak at} Sangareddy and Pass

¶28

ThisPetitionComingonforhearing,Uponperusingthel/emorandumof Grounds of criminal^{Petitionand upon hearing the argumentsof Sris.} NIRANJAN REDDY,^{Senior Counselfor N NAVEEN KUMAR ,Advocate for the} PEtitiONCr ANd Of^{STi M.S.ACHYUTH BHARTHWAJ'AdVOCAICfOT thc} RespondentNo.l.andthePublicProsecutor(TG)onbehalfoftheRespondent No.2 .

¶29

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶30

IIIE^{IIQIY'BI.E qBL JUSIICE} UJJAL^BHUYAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O288 of 2O2L

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Hearci N1r. S.Nrranjan Redcil , lcanted sentor counsci lor iirt petitloner; N{r. Nl.S. Achr lrrha Bharacisal, learned counsel i'o r tne frrst respor.rcient - de fa,cio compTainant; ar-rd Mr. Ganesh, learneC Assrstant Pr-rb1ic Prosccutor lor the State of Teiangana.

¶33

2 This petrtion has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminai Procedure Cocle, 1973 (Cr. P.C) for quashing of oflences arisrng out cf C.C.No.320 ol 20 15 on thc file of learned Additional Judicial Firsi Class Magistrate, Sangareddl', culminating in convrction ,,,ide the jucigment and order datecl 10.12.2015 ne1a, pending in appeal viCe Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2015 on the file of the iearr. eci IX Additional District Jurlge, Medak ar Sangaredd.v.

¶34

3 Case of the petitioncl is that he ts a Member of Legisiatir,e Assemblr' (MLA) rcprcscnlirrq P:rtancheru cor.rstituencl ir-r the district of Sangareddl' having boen elected on the ticket ol' Telangana Rashtra Samrthi (TRS) partv.

¶35

4 First respondent as the de _facto complainant had loCgeC a complaint against the pr:tirioner on 07.05.2014 before tl-re police station BDL Bhanur being FIR No.1 02 of 201,4 registered under

¶36

GJ:a!rG--

¶37

Sections 323, 342, 386, 448, 504 and 506 of Indian^PenalCode, I860 (lPC). In the complaint it u'as aileged that one^{personby the} name ol Mahesh, a resicient of Patancheru constituerlc)' and^working as Packing Assistant in a company cailed Varsatile Company had died on 05.05.2014. Alleging foul play, petitioner along with⁷⁰ persons had trespassed into the company premises and abused the management in hlthy language. It is alleged that he forcibly took a cheque for an amount of Rs.15,00,000-00 for^payment to the family of the deceased Mahesh.

¶38

5 On completion of investigation police fried charge sheet on 28.O2.2015 and taking cognizance of.the same a case was registered as C.C.No.320 of 20 15 on the file of learned Additional .Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy where trial r,r'as conducted, On conclusion ol the tria1, learned Additional Judicial First^Class Magistrate, Sangaredd-v, delivered the^judgment on 10.12.20 15. While the petitioner u,as acquitted lor the offence under Section 323 lPC, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 342, 386, 447, 5O4 and 506 iPC.

¶39

6 Aggrieved by the above conviction, petitioner preferred appeal before the Court of learned IX Additional District & Sessions^Judge,

¶40

Medak at Sangareddy, ri'hich rvas registered as Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2015 and is stated to be presentlv pending.

¶41

7 During the pendencr. of the appeal, petitioner filed a petition under section 32o (2) cr.p.c in criminar Appear No. 156 of 20 1s. It was mentioned that the first respondent i.e. the de facto complainant had approached the cor-irt beror.r, and hacr filed an affidavit dated 12.11.2021 requesting the Court belovv to compromise the complaint. However, the same was returned by the appellate Court below on the ground that the offences are non_compoundable in nature

¶42

B It is statecl that first responclent is not u'illir-rg to conrinue criminal proccedings against the petitioner.

¶43

9 Petitioner has contended that the allegations made by the first respondent in FIR No.1o2 of 2014 on the basis of u,hich he has been convicted and nou' is in appeal, are personal in natllre; there is no infringement to public peace and tranquillity. Therefore, first respondent is not rvilling to continue u,ith the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, first respondent has taken the above stand r.'oluntarill, u.ithout receiving any kind of pressure or coercion. lt is in such circumstances that the present , petition has been filed.

¶44

10 During the hearing a joint memo dated 26.12.2027 came to be filed by the petitioner and the first respondent. In paragraph No.6 of the memo it is stated that upon intervention of elders and well wishers first respondent i.e., de facto complainant is w,illing to u'ithdrarv the charges / complaint agair-rst the petitioner. It is further stated that during the pendency of the appeal before the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, petitioner had filed a petition r.inder Section 320 (21 Cr.P.C. First respondent filed an affidavit in support of such petition on 12.11.2021 . Hou,ever, learned appellate Court below returned the said petition on the ground that the offences on u,hich petitioner has been convicted are non-compoundabie in nature. First respondent has expressly stated that he is not u'illing to continue criminai proceedings against the petitioner an.t further. That apart, the charges agair-rst the petitioner are personal in nature and there is no infringement to public peace and tranquillity. Such stand of the first respondent has been taken voluntaril.r, w,ithout anv pressure or coerc10n.

¶45

l1 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court, at the stage of pendency of appeal before the lou,er appellate Court, the

¶46

charge against the petitioner can be quashed by the High Court by exercising porver under Section 482 Cr.p.C. In support of his submissions learned senior counsel has placed reiiance on the lollorving decisions:-

¶47

(i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab r, (ii) Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh z and (iii) Ramgopal Vs, State of Madhya Prade shs.

¶48

12 M r. Bharadu aj, lelrrned counsel lbr the first responcient submitted that his ciient is no longer u.illing to pursue the criminal procee<lings zrgainst thc pt r.rriont.r..

¶49

13 Submissions macle bv learnecl counse I for the parties have received the due considerzrLion of the Colrrt.

¶50

14 Section 320 ol Cr.P.C deals u'ith compounding of offences. As per Sub Section (1), the offences specified in the first two columns of the table may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column. Sub-Section (2) says that the olfences punishable under the sections ol IpC specified in the Ilrst two columns of the table may be compounded by the

¶51

' 1zorz1 ro scc:o:

¶52

'2021SCC OnLine SC 966 r 2o?1 SCC OnLine SC 834

¶53

¶54

persons mentioned in the third column with the permission of the court before which any prosecution for such oflences is pending. In so far, Sections 342, 447,504 and 506 of IPC are concerned, those are compoundable under Sub-section (1) of Section 32O. However. Section 386 of IPC is a noncompoundable offence.

¶55

l5 A fir,e Judge Ber-rch of the Pun.lab &, l lar.'ana High Court in Kulwinder Singh V. State of Punjaba s'as called upon to determine, inter alia, the question whether the High Court has the pou,er under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceeding or to allow compounding of offences in cases ivhich have been specified as noncompoundable offences under the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The five Judge Bench referred to various case laws and thereafter lramed the following guidelines.

¶56

"21. ...'la) Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other offences are introduced for aggravation of the case.

¶57

(b) Cases pertaining to property disputes betwe:n close relations, which are predominantly civii in nature and thet have a genuine or belaboured dimension of criminal liabilir. Not\'ithstan(ling a touch of criminal liabilitv, the settlemcnt would bring lasting pcace artrl harmony to largcr nunrber of people.

¶58

(c) Cases of dispute betu,een oid parlr'rers or business concerns with dealings over a long period which are pre(lominantlv civil and are given or acquire a criminal dimension but the parries are essentiall! seeking a redressal of their financial or commercial cl;rint.

¶59

'1zoou 1 o crc zss

¶60

¶61

(@ Minor offences as Lurder Section 27g lp] may be permitted to be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement betu.ecn the parties. yet another offence which remarrrs non-compoundable is Section 506(ll) lpC, which is punishable with 7,rcars imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under Sectiot] 506 lpC in most cases is based on the oral declaration with different shacles of intention. Another set ol otfences, which ought to be Iiberally compounded, are Scctions l4T and, 148 lpc, more particularly \yhere other ofl'ences are compoundable. lt may be added here that the State of Madhl-a pradesh r.ide N,t.p. Act 17 ol t999 (Secrion 3) has made Sections 506(ll) IpC. l-17 lpc and 14g IpC compounclable offences bv amending the scheduie ul].1cr Section 320 Crpc.

¶62

(e) The oflenccs againsr human bocl-r. other titalt murder and culpable homicide .,here lhe victim dies in the course of tr.ansaction lvould lall in the categon' \r'here compoundinq mav not be perrnitted. Heinous ofie.ces rike highwa), robbery, dacoit). or A case involvrng clear,cut allegatior.rs of rape should also lall in the prohrbited caregon. Offences committed bt. public servants purporting to ac1 ln th.tt capacit-\ as also olTcnces against public servant u hile thc victlms .r... .rcting in thc dischargc ol. their duty must remain non -com pou ndable. Offences against the State enshrined in Chapter VIi (relating to a.m), nav-. and ail. Iorce) lTlLlst rcrnain non -com pott ndaltle.

¶63

{l]^{That as} a broad guidcline rhe olfcnces againsl l.ruman bod-. other than mtrrder and culpable homicrtle may be perrnittcci to be coml)oun.ied tvhen the court is ir1 the position to record a finding that the setrlement betli/een the parties is voluntar_,and fair.

¶64

Whiie parring lvith this part, it appears necessary to add that the settlement or compromise must satisfy the conscience of the court. The settlement must be just and fair besides being lree from the undue pressure, the court must examine the cases of rveaker and vulnerable victims with necessary cautioll.'

¶65

'i'o conclude, it can safel\ be said that tl.tere can never be an_r. hard and fast category rvhich can be prescribed fo enable the court to exercrse lfs po!,er under Sectjon 482 CrpC. The onl_v prjncipie that can be laid dolvn is the one rvhiclt has been incorporatcd ir) the section jtself i.e. ,to prevent abllse of the process ofany court'or'to secure the encls ol iustice',,

¶66

i. Thus from the above. it is seen that according to the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, as a broad guideline, offences against human boclv other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitteci to be compoltnded $,hen the Court is in

¶67

'|.ia--r_fu.qE*

¶68

the position to record a hnding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair.

¶69

16 The above decision of the five Judge Bench of punjab & Haryana High Court was considered by the Supreme Court in Gicrn Singh (supral; whereafter Supreme Court summarised the position that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or compiaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the pou er given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

¶70

17 In the recent decision in Ramgopal case (3 supra) Supreme Court examined the question of lar.v ioncerning the power of a High Court to quash proceedings emanating from non-compoundable offences which have no impact or depriving effect on the society at large on the basis of a compromise betu'een the accused and the victim - complainant. lt has been held as follor,,'s:

¶71

True it is that offences rvhich are 'non compoundable cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purporrcd exercise of its porvers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Anl such attempt ltv the court \iould amounr to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.p.C. which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. Therc is no I)atent or latent ambiguit-y in the language of Section 320 Cr.P,C,, ,,vhich ma"v justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' oflences u.hich bave been consciously kept out as non -com poundable. Nevertheless, the Iimited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the frameu,,ork of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent porvers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court. keeping in vie$, the peculiar facts and clrcumstances of a casc and for justifial)le t-easons catl press Scctiolt 482 Ct.P.C. in aid to pre!.ent irltLrse of the process of anv Courr andlor to secrrre the cn.is of.Justlce.

¶72

The Iligh Cou . therefore, having regard to the nature of the oflence and th-e fact that parties h.r\e amrcabl\ s",ii"a ,n",r,ii"pute ^,.,a^{rhe \icrim} has rvittingil. consenred to r',, ,.u,ifrcarro,r.,.;;;",;;;t p..5""at"g., ca. quastr such proceedings in exer.cise ,..r I its rnherenL pur."." r.,.j". Scctrorr 4g2 Cr.lr.C., cven if the offences are non_.ompoLln(lable. tht Itrgh C<rurt can lndubitablv eialLtate thc conscouen....r efiecrs of rn. "if.r." i.*"rlf ,f" U"jl- "i.. indrvidual and thertiafter ddopt a pragmatir approacir. ro ensure lhat tlre felorr-r. even if qoes unnrrrrslred. cioes-'nor ,j.k:i';.ii;'.;'paralrze rhe .err oolect of tlre atlmrnistrair.,rr ,,, ..,-,nri1urr,,. ;i ;;";.' '

¶73

It appears to us tit.tt crimrnal proccedings involt.irlg non iteinous ofl-errces or \ it(,rc tlte ollincc ann,rred irrcsl,ecrive "i, ,n,,',.J," J',i;;t,:l,li,i,l,J,"i,,=i,i,:,lXi,l,"lii,ii,,Xil^,li :fj:11"":l:.:.^1,;11,s-sed^{:re., rrsr .on',u.,,o,,t;,i,;;;;,} i,,,,,1,."n1 ," no1 or uelrverlnR tustr(e. Socicral nrctho(i of applring 1a.." er"nlr,. is atvtals sublect lo la\,ful px,cptions. ll goes r!llhoul Ji,.g,.,h;;",;;..j.;: rvhere compronrrse rs srr...k no"t,"orui.tio,,-,-t;;]i6 i].;;; ought to exercise the such chsc.etiorr incicicrt, rhe fashion * irh recrrrLrri,l..keeping in rr hici,r tf..," rn'ieul,;; ;i;;;;;;...s "n,, pr,r,rr,""";;;' ;;",, arrivecl surroLrndingar, ancl uith due regard ro the nrrrn.c ancl scriousrrcss,rf if,., "if"r.". besir.ics the conrluct ol thc.lcc!tscd, l)cloTc an(i afrcr thc incirlence. Thc toLlchsfone lbr exerclslng the extra-ordirrr '\ l)o\vcr unclc-r Scction.18, Cr.l,C. rr.oulcl be to secure the ends ofJustice.^.l-irc,re can be no hard onA f."r iinc constrrcting the porver of the High Court to clo substanrial .;r",i".. e .."i.i"tiu. .o.,"t.rctio., of inherent po$.ers under Seclion +A.2 Cr.p.C. -"1: f.^J',"'.igid or specious mal,rather leacl justice, which in to grave injustice. the on given facts the other hand, and circumstancJs i, ."".. ;;.;.-;;iius "i;";"., ofences have been proved against perpetrators. no^such benelir ought to be extended, as cautiousl' observed Lr rhis Courr ,4 No,n;;Z'; i,ngh u. Srare of PLtnjab3 and l,cLrmi NclraAat (SLtpra), 14. In orher $.ords, grave o^r .serious oflences or offences which involve moral turpitude or have a harmful effect "" ,fr.-"".,uf i"i'_or", fabric of the society or involve matters concerning, publ. p"l.y,-;;;t be construed P..:,", l,**"^{indivirluals or groupsonly,-for} """n lii.",.L. f,uve the potential to rmpact the societ) at large . Liffacing aUomi.,atrt. .ff.".-ii-"gfr quashing process uould ltot onl!, scn(i a q,rong signal ,o,f_r".o_nrurrit).but ma-y also accorcl an undrre bclefrt ,,, ,,,,".r,,p,,1o,,., lraltrtual or frnt*ar,o,,ot offenders, who can sccure a scrtlemcr1 ri,roL,gl,,l,",r"ss.-,h;";; :,;,;i l)oycotrs, l)ri'cs or be orlrc,r ar o ir redd.l)iors mears. lr t. ,r,.ll sairl rh"r "l;r-;';r.,;,t.r: ,nil escap., ir it carr

¶74

18 In other words, it has been held that the High Court having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably senled their dispute \,i th the victim willingly consenting to nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent pou.ers under section 4g2 Cr.p.c. even if the offences are non -com pou ncizrble. The High Court can evaluate the

¶75

consequential^{effects of the offencebe,"*ond the body' of aI individual} and thereafter^{adopt a pragmatic approach to ensure that the felony} even if it^{goes unpunished,does not tinker u'ith or paralyse the very} object of administration^{ol criminal justice' Criminalproceedings} invoiving non-heinous^{offences orwhere theoffences are} predominantly of^{a private nature can be annulled irrespective of the} fact that trial had^{concludedor appealagainstconviction has been} dismissed. The^{touchstone for exercisingthe extraordinarypower} under Section^{482 C1.P.C.would be to secure the ends of justice'} Thus,^{grave or serious offencesor olfences involving moral turpitude} or having a harmful^{effect on society or involvit-tgmattersconcerning} public policy have^{the potentialto impact the society at large and} should not^{be quashed.}

¶76

19 Supreme^{Court in Ramawatarcase (2 supra)put in a further} caveat b)' l-rolding^{that pou'er underArticle142 or under Section 482} Cr. P. C are^{exercisablein post convictionmatters only r't'herean} appeal is^{pendingbeforeone or the other judicial forum Pendency} of legal^{proceedings is the sine-qtta-nonto involve the superior} court's^{plenary powers to do complete justice' Conversely' where a} settlement has^{ensured post the attainment of all legalremedies'}

¶77

annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise u,ould be im permi ssi ble

¶78

20 Having noticed the regal position as above, court is of the view that the criminal charges against the petitioner as affirmed by the iearneci triai Court u'hich is pending before the appellate court in appeal are personal in nalure. Complainant has also come forward to amicably settle the matter. Therefore, considering all aspects of the matter, Court is of the view that as desired by the parties a quietus may be given to the dispute between the two parties.

¶79

21 Accordinglr', the offences arising out of C.C.No.320 of 20 15 or: the file ol learnecl Adclrtional .J r_rclicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddl , are quashecl. Consequentl,r,, judgment arrcl orcler ciated 10.12.2015 passed bv thc saicl Court rvould aiso stanci qurashed. Res,ltantl-r', crirninar Alrpc':r) No. 156 or 2o 15 on the fiie of learneci iX Additionai District & Sessrons Jucige. lVleciak ar Sangareddy u,ouicl stand closeci

¶80

22 Criminal petition is accordinglv allolied. Miscellaneous

¶81

petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall stand ciosed

¶82

To,

¶83

Sd/.M.MANJULA ASSISTANIREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qt' SECTION OFFICER

¶84