IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY. THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS IA.Nos.2&3of 2024 in / and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 370 of 2016 Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.464 of 2014 dated 29-1-2016 on the file of the Court of the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge. At East Godavari. Rajahmundry in confirming the Judgment in S.C.No. 182 of 2013 dated 25- 11-2014 on the file of the I Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge Rajahmundry in convicting the appellants 1 to 3/A1 to A3 are found guilty for the offence U/Se.c. 306 RA/V. 34 IPC and they are sentenced U/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. to undergo for 3 years SI and also liable to pay Rs. 500/- fine in default to SI for one.month Al to A3 are found guilty for the Offence U/s 498A R/W. 34 IPC and they are sentenced U/Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C. Between: 1. M.V.Venkata Ramana. S/o Venkatarao. Hindu, aged 39 years. Teacher in Elementary School. Gadarada R/o D.No.23-18-18. lalitha Nagar. 3 Street. Rajahmundry. East Godavari Distict. 2. Mandala Venkatarao. S/o Late Abaddam. Hindu, aged 68 years. R/o D.No. 23-18-18. Lalitha Nagar. 3'^^ Street, Rajahmundry East Godavari District 3. Smt. Mandala Seetha Mahalakshmi @ Lakshmi. W/o Venkatarao. Hindu, aged 39 years. House Wife. R/o D.No.23-18-18. Lalitha Nagar. 3'"^ street. Rajahmundry. East Godavari District. rd ...Petitioners / Appellant / Accused 1 to 3 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi 2. Nakka Kondala Rao, S/o Sri Gurrayya, Age;65 Years, Occ: Retired Government Service R/o Sankhavaram-533446, Kakinada District (Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the Court Order dated 27-01-2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2024.) ...Respondent No.2 / De-facto Complainant / PW-2 lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: Nakka Kondala Rao, S/o Sri Gurrayya, Age:65 Years, Occ: Retired Government Service R/o Sankhavaram-533446, Kakinada District ...Petitioner / De-facto Complainant / PW-2 AND M.V.Venkata Ramana, S/o Venkatarao, Hindu, aged 39 years. Teacher in Elementary School, Gadarada R/o D.No.23-18-18, lalitha Nagar, 3rd Street, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Distict. Mandala Venkatarao, S/o Late Abaddam, Hindu, aged 68 years, D.No. 23-18-18, Lalitha Nagar, 3rd Street, Rajahmundry East Godavari District 1. 2. R/o 3. Smt. Mandala Seetha Mahalakshmi @ Lakshmi, W/o Venkatarao, House Wife, R/o D.No.23-18-18, Lalitha Nagar, Hindu, aged 39 years, 3rd street, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...Respondents / Petitioners / A-1 to A-3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi 4. ...Respondent / Respondent / Complainant Petition under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C and Linder Section 359 (2) of B.N.S.S, of praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to compound/compromise the offence against the Respondents 1 &2/Petitioners 1&2/A-1&A-2 by allowing the present Criminal Revision Case filed against the Judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaramm, dated 29-01- 2016 preferred against the calendar and Judgment made in S.C.No. 182 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the 1 Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, dated 25-11-2014. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: Nakka Kondala Rao, S/o Sri Gurrayya, Age:65 Years, Occ: Retired Government Service R/o Sankhavaram-533446, Kakinada District ...Petitioner / De-facto Complainant / PW-2 AND 1. M.V.Venkata Ramana, S/o Venkatarao, Hindu, aged 39 years. Teacher in Elementary School, Gadarada R/o D.No.23-18-18, lalitha Nagar, 3rd Street, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Distict. 2. Mandala Venkatarao, S/o Late Abaddam, Hindu, aged 68 D.No. 23-18-18, Lalitha Nagar, 3rd Street, Rajahmundry East Godavari District 3. Smt. Mandala Seetha Mahalakshmi @ Lakshmi, W/o Venkatarao, Hindu, aged 39 years 3rd street, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. years, R/o House Wife, R/o D.No.23-18-18, Lalitha Nagar ... Respondents / Petitioners / A-1 to A-3 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi ...Respondent / Respondent / Complainant Petition under Section 320 (6) of Cr.P.C and Under Section 359 (6) of B.N.S.S, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant permission to the Petitioner to compromise the offence under Sections 306 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 IPC, 1961 in the present case Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M. SANTOSH REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS l■A■Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.370 of 2016 COMMON ORDER: Assailing the Judgment dated 29.01.2016 in Crl.A.No.464 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 by the Judgment dated 25.11.2014 in S.C.No.182 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of IRC and Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 04.02.2016 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioners/accused were suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.476 of 2016. Pending criminal revision case, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 were filed by the petitioners and Respondent No.2/PW.2/c/e facto 3. 2 complainant to record the compromise and permit them to compound the offences under Sections 498-A IPC, 306 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 4. Today, when the matter is taken up, the petitioners/accused and Respondent No.2, who is de facto complainant 1961. are present before this Court and produced their respective identity proofs, they were identified by the learned counsel on both sides and they jointly filed a compromise petition stating that pending the Revision Case, both the parties have submitted that they have settled the matter amicably on the advice of elders in view of the welfare of grandsons of de facto complainant, who are sons of accused No.1. 5. Now, 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 noticeably clear that it may be used its inherent 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. This Court is conscious of the fact that the inherent power used under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is discretionary, sparingly, and power 6. cautious to prevent misuse and while using it should also be conscious. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts laid guidelines, where the inherent powers can be invoked, where there is an abuse of process of the Court or to meet the ends of justice the Court can invoke inherent jurisdiction. 7. In this connection, it is relevant to make a mention a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS\ wherein had laid down the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which are as follows: “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 govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may 2006 AIR sew 3990 4 possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent apart from express provisions of law which powers are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in 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.” 5 This Court also perused another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab^, wherein at paragraph No.61 held as follows: “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 are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any 8. ^(2012) 10 see 303 6 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 flavor 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 dowry, 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 settlement and compromise between the victim and 7 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.” 9. Having regard to the above authoritative pronouncements, and in view of the submissions made by the Respondent No.2 that he has no objection to record the compromise and consider the present revision and by taking into consideration of the welfare of the sons of accused No.1, this Court is inclined to consider the I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 and the same are ordered. Consequently, the present Criminal Revision Case No.370 of 2016 is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, vide Judgment dated 25.11.2014 in S.C.No.182 of 2013 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, confirmed in the Judgment, dated 29.01.2016 in Crl.A.No.464 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, are hereby set aside. The revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC, 306 read with 34 10. as 8 IPC and Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The fine amount paid by the petitioners, if any, shall be refunded to them. Interim orders granted earlier if any, shall stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR ' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, District & Sessions Judge, At East Godavari, 1. The I Additional Rajahmundry (with records) Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, East 2. The I Godavari District. 3. The Superintendent District. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison,(Women Celi), Rajahmundry, , Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East Godavari East Godavari District. 5. OneCCto 6. OneCCto 7. Two CCs to Public 8. The Section Officer, Criminai Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Sri M.Santosh Reddy, Advocate [OPUCj Sri N.Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Amaravathi. 9. Three CD Copies. (ENCLOSING THE JOINT MEMO) PR HIGH COURT N DATED:27/01/2025 o^and^^ ORDER 'x 2J MAR 2025 Current Secwon ^ IA.N0.2 & 3 OF 2024^<^2£«I£gg<= IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 370 OF 2016 ALLOWING THE CRLRC AND lA.Nos. 2 & 3 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI THE / of 2024 I.A.No. in Crl.RC.No 370 of 2016 Between: 1. M.Veera Venkata Ramana, S/o Sri Venkata Rao Age: 49 years, Occ; Teacher, R/o Door No.23-18-18, 3'^ Street, Lalitha Nagar, Rajamahendravaram - 533 105, E.G.Dist. 2. Mandala Venkata Rao, S/o Late Sri Abadham, Age: 75 Years, Occ: Rtd. Service, R/o Door No.23-18-18, 3"'^ Street, Lalitha Nagar, Rajamahendravaram - 533 105, E.G.Dist. 3. Smt. Mandala Seetha Mahalakshmi (Died) ... Petitioners/Petitioners AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Amaravathi 2. Nakka Kondala Rao, S/o Sri Gurrayya, Age: 65 Years, Occ: Rtd. Govt. Service R/o Sankhavaram - 533 446, Kakinada District ... Respondent/Respondent .Respondent/Proposed Respondent No.2 JOINT MEMO filed BY THE PETITIONERS & PROPOSED R-2 respectfully submitted that the dispute relating to the subject matter Criminal Revision Case preferred against the Judgment made It is in the present in Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the I Additional & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaramm, dated District 29-01-2016 preferred against the calendar and Judgment made in S.C.No. :;2:; 182 of 2013 on the fiJe of the Court of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, dated 25-11-2014 are settled between the Petitioners1&2/A-1 & A-2 and the de-facto Complainant/proposed 2 Respondent before the well-wishers of both sides nd and they are living separately in different villages along wiih their own families peacefully and as such, the De-facto Complainant/Proposed R-2 has no objection to get the matter compromised against the Petitioners 1 and 2 /A-1 & A-2 and to allow this Criminal Revision Case. Respondent in this I.A. The Petitioners and the proposed 2 are jointly filing the present Memo for compromising the offence with free will and consent and there is no coercion in getting the matter compromised. Hence, this Memo. nd Amaravathi 14-09-2024 ^ ‘cT7 L- O ^ Petitioner/De-facto Complainant Counsel for the Petit! plainant r V V 4^ ■0^ v>0 C-a'M !^^^^-Respondont/1^^ Petitioner r T'l 3^*^■Rospeftdent/2^‘^ Petitioner 1/ ^ 1/ ."O' Counsel for the RR 2&3/Petitioners 1&2