APHC010145942013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2620/2013 Between: 1. NUTHAKKI ATCHUTHACHARI, GUNTUR DT.,, S/O. ABRAHAM, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. KOLAKALURU VILLAGE, DUGGIRALA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP REP PP HYD, REPT. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. NUTAKKI SANDHYA, W/O. ACHYUTA CHARI, HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. KOLAKALURU VILLAGE, DUGGIRALAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 16.12.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.R.C.NO.2620 OF 2013. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased toto present this memorandum of criminal revision case to this Hon'ble Court against the judgment dated 27.12.2013 passed in Crl.Appeal No. 385 of 2012 of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in confirming the judgment dated 17-10-2012 passed in S.C.No. 272 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 4133 OF 2013 2 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2620 of 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused herein on bail by suspending the sentence and conviction dated 17-10-2012 passed in S.C.No. 272 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, Guntur District as confirmed in Crl.Appeal No. 385 of 2012 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur dated 27-12-2013. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to implead the proposed respondent herein as respondent No. 2 in above Criminal Revision Case in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to accord permission to record the compromise record the compromise entered by both the revision petitioner/accused and me by considering my affidavit and to allow the CRLRC No.2620 of 2013 by setting aside the sentence passed against the revision petitioner/accused in Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 2012, order dt.27.12.2013 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, Guntur District which was confirmed vide Order, dt. 17.10.2012 in SC No. 272 of 2012, on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, Guntur District in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise entered by both the revision petitioner/accused and 2nd respondent/complainant by considering the affidavit of complainant and to allow the CRLRC No.2620 of 2013 by setting aside sentence passed against the revision petitioner/accused in Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 2012, order dt.27.12.2013 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, Guntur District which was confirmed vide Order, dt. 17.10.2012 in SC No. 272 of 2012, on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, Guntur District in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 3 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2620 of 2013 1. N SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. P SHREE RAM 4 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2620 of 2013 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA I.A.No.1 of 2026 and I.A.No.2 of 2026 In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2620/2013 COMMON ORDER: 1. I.A.No.1 of 2026 is the petition for permission to record compromise entered between the parties. 2. I.A.No. 2 of 2026 is the petition to record compromise entered between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant/2nd respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 17.10.2012 of learned Court below in Sessions Case.No.272 of 2012, wherein the petitioner was charged with section 307 of Indian Penal Code along sections 498-A & 324 of IPC. After conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court has found the petitioner to be guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498-A as well as 324 of I.P.C, thereby convicted. Against the order of conviction, the instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred vide Crl.A.No.385 of 2012. The learned Appellate Court has confirmed the order by dismissing the appeal. Hence this Criminal Revision Petition. 5 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2620 of 2013 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the year 2015, the de-facto complainant being a wife is residing with her husband/petitioner peacefully. There were matrimonial disharmony between the parties, due to some difference of opinion in the matrimonial relation, the alleged offence was happened by the petitioner. Now, in view of the present status of the parties, as they are living jointly and peacefully. The conviction and sentence against the present petitioner approach this court for recording compromise between the parties. Partiers further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several occasions has held that, if there is compromise between the parties, even if the offence are non-compoundable, but if the offence relates to matrimonial dispute, the same can be compounded. 5. In support of this contention the cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 58. Where 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. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of 6 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2620 of 2013 society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. 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 flavor 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. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal (Special Leave Petition Criminal Appeal.No.1113 of 2024, “Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466,” wherein the relevant portion cited in the judgment to enlight the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorized the power of the High Court to record the compounded the offence is not compoundable statutorily. 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a 7 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2620 of 2013 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 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 flavour 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. 62. In view of the above, it cannot be said that B.S. Joshi1, Nikhil Merchant2 and Manoj Sharma3 were not correctly decided. We answer the reference accordingly. Let these matters be now listed before the concerned Bench(es). 8 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2620 of 2013 7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objections. Though he submits that the view of Hon’ble Supreme Court is acceptable. 8. During hearing the petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant namely Nutakki Sandhya W/o Achyutha Chari appears before this court, on a query the complainant namely Nutakki Sandhya submits that since more than 10 years she is living with her husband/petitioner, there is no pressure, coercion or influence from outside. She is living with her husband on her own decision. At present she is living jointly and intends to live together forever. 9. On hearing the specific statement of the de-facto complainant, it appears that the contents in I.A.No.2 of 2026 is true and bonafied. I.A.No.2 of 2026 also contains one affidavit by the 2nd respondent/complainant containing the facts of her stay with her husband/petitioner for more than 10 years. Joint compromise memo filed by the parties also properly attested by the petitioner and 2nd respondent in the presence of learned counsel for the respective parties. 9 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2620 of 2013 10. It appears from the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab” as well as “Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 in this matter, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again observed that the inherent power of the High Court is quite enough to cope up with the situations, so that the justice cannot be otherwise, then with the decorum of the society. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab” though have excise power under inherent power of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 142 of the Constitution, in my view the High Court are also inherent power to deal with such type of situation. 11. In the present case it appears that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 324 of IPC. The offence punishable under section 498-A is compoundable as per the amendment of Cr.P.C from the state of Andhra Pradesh (Act 11 of 2003 dated 09.07.2003).Thereby this court has no obligation to compound the offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C against the present petitioner by virtue of joint affidavit and joint compromise recorded between the parties in terms of I.A.No.2 of 2026. 10 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2620 of 2013 12. In view of the conviction under section 324 of IPC, it has been alleged in the prosecution case that the petitioner has assaulted the complainant at the relevant date, which was recorded by the learned Trail Judge and appears to be grievous in nature. The prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the present petitioner under section 324 of I.P.C.The date of alleged offence is 07.03.2009. Since then the trial was commenced and conviction order was passed, the present de- facto complainant/wife is staying with her husband/petitioner, there are no dispute regarding her stay with petitioner and, on hearing, she voluntarily admits that, she is happy to stay with her husband. 13. On considering the entire facts, it appears that on the present situation, if the order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the learned appellate Court is allowed to be continued, the entire family status which was settled after several discards between the parties would again disturbed. The law shall not allow anything to be disturbed, which was already re- settled. The call of the society cannot be over looked, on that view, I think it is necessary to exercise the inherent power of this 11 SS,J Crl.R.C.No.2620 of 2013 Court to record the compromise in respect of conviction under section 324 of I.P.C against the present petitioner to compound the same. 14. Accordingly, in view of the application being I.A.No.2 of 2026 the conviction and sentence against the present petitioner under section 324 of I.P.C is here by compounded. 15. In the above observation, the application I.A.No.1 and 2 of 2026 is considered and allowed for the offence punishable under section 498-A as well as the 324 of I.P.C against the present petitioner is compounded. The order of the conviction and sentence passed against the present petitioner is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of, under above condition. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:06.02.2026. CMK/SSA