APHC010024002023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY IA NOs.5 OF 2023 & 6 OF 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 54 OF 2023 Between: Pullaganti Jagadish ...PETITIONER A N D The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T BALAJI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 C O M M O N O R D E R This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment, dated 18.01.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2022 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case No.272 of 2019 vide Judgment, dated 05.08.2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet. 2. A case in Crime No.97 of 2019 of Chitvel Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and Section 3 read with 181 and Section 5 read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the MV Act’) was registered as against the petitioner herein/accused No.1 along with accused No.2. After full-fledged trial, vide Judgment, dated 05.08.2022, learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet, convicted the petitioner herein/accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC and Section 3 read with 181 of the MV Act in terms of Section 255 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer 3 simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC; the petitioner herein/accused No.1 was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with 181 of the MV Act. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet acquitted the accused No.2 of the aforesaid offences in terms of Section 255 (1) CrPC. 3. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, petitioner/accused No.1 preferred the Criminal Appeal before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet. On reappreciation of entire evidence brought on record, the Appellate Judge, vide Judgment, dated 18.01.2023 in Criminal Appeal no.68 of 2022, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused No.1 preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. 4. On 16.07.2024, when the matter was taken up, petitioner herein/accused No.1, respondent No.2/complainant, 4 who is brother of one Thathamsetty Subrahamnayam (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) and respondent No.3 herein/son of the deceased are present before this Court and filed IA No.6 of 2023 seeking permission to compound the case. They produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and the learned counsel for 2nd and 3rd respondents herein identified both parties in the open Court. This Court questioned 2nd and 3rd respondents herein with regard to compromise and they categorically stated to that extent that they voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and there is no threat, coercion or undue influence in arriving at the compromise. This Court is satisfied with the identification of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. 5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another1 the Hon’ble Apex court held at paragraph No.57, as under: "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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 1 2012 (9) Scale 257 5 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 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 favour 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 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.” 6 6. In view of the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and compounded the offence, there is no hindrance to record the same. Accordingly, Judgment, dated 18.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2022 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Rajampet, confirming the Judgment, dated 05.08.2022, passed in Calendar Case No.272 of 2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet, is set- aside. Consequently, the petitioner herein/accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304A IPC and Section 3 read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.5 of 2023 and 6 of 2023 and Criminal Revision Case No.54 of 2023 are allowed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. ______ _________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 12th February, 2025. DNB