THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1165 of 2010 02-09-2014 BETWEEN:
Vana Lakshmana @ Lakshmana Rao And another …..Appellants/A.4 and A.5 AND State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for The State of Telangana and the State of A.P.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1165 of 2010 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants/A.4 and A.5 challenging the Judgment, dated 04.10.2010, in S.C.No.5 of 2009 passed by the Hon’ble Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – cum –Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, whereby the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced A.1 to A.4 to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of ten days each for the offence under Section 341 IPC; A.4 and A.5 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days each for the offence under Section 323 IPC; and A.5 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellants/A.4 and A.5 has filed an affidavit sworn by A.4 and A.5 as well as the respondent/de facto complainant stating that with the intervention of the elders and well wishers of both parties, they have settled the matter out of Court, and hence, learned counsel seeks permission of this Court to compound the offences.
Learned counsel for the appellants/A.4 and A.5 submits that though the offences registered against the appellants/A.4 and A.5 are non-compoundable, the Court has the power to permit the parties to enter into compromise, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012 Cri.L.J.4934). The relevant portion of the said Judgment is extracted as under (paras 53 and 54) 53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a Court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the Court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
5 4 . Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. … … In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry etc., or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R., if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.
(emphasis supplied) This Court, relying on the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is of the view that though the offences are non- compoundable, it may be permitted to compound the offences. Accordingly, parties are permitted to compound the offences. The affidavit filed by the appellants/A.4 and A.5 as well as respondent/de facto complainant shall form part of the record.
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellants/A.4 and A.5 and acquitting them of all the charges. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties stand discharged. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellants/A.4 and A.5 shall be returned to them.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 02.09.2014 pln