APHC010738352014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:53 OF 2014 Between: 1. A.SELVAM, S/O.ALLAHSWAMY, R/O. SRINAMBADUR HARJANAWADA, SATHYAVEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD. THROUGH P.S., SATYAVEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. V ROJA, W/O. V. VILSON, AGE.44 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. D.NO.1-25, SIRUNAMBUDHUR (V AND P), SATHYAVEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 517588. 3. V VILSON, S/O. LATE. YEVAN, AGE.50 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. D.NO.1-25, SIRUNAMBUDHUR (V AND P), SATHYAVEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT - 517588. RESPONDENT NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 06.02.2026 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.R.C.NO.53 OF 2014. ...RESPONDENTS: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the Order dt.13.01.2014 made in Crl.A.No.249 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble court of the III Addl. Sessions Judge at Tirupati. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 111 OF 2014) 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 on bail by suspend the operation of the order, -2- CRL.R.C.No.53 of 2014 Date of order:27.02.2026 dt.13.01.2014 made in Crl.A.No.249 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble court of the III Addl. Sessions Judge at Tirupati, by partly confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu in CC.No.21 of 2009 dt.13.09.2012 in the interest of justice. 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 permit the petitioners to enter into compromise with the respondent/accused and record the compromise and discharge the petitioner/accused by set aside the judgments in C.C. No.21 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu, dated 13-01-2014 and the judgment dt.13-01-2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.249 of 2012 on the file of Hon'ble III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati for the offence under Section 324 IPC 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 permit the petitioners to record the compromise in C.C. No.21 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu and pass IA NO: 3 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 permit the petitioners to enter into compromise with the respondent/accused and record the compromise and discharge the petitioner/accused by set aside the judgments in C.C. No.21 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu, dated 13-01-2014 and the Judgment dt.13-01-2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.249 of 2012 on the file of Hon'ble III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati for the offence under Section 324 IPC and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T LAKSHMI PADMAJA Counsel for the Respondents: 1. KONDETI RANGA SRINIVAS 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: -3- CRL.R.C.No.53 of 2014 Date of order:27.02.2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA I.A.Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2026 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:53 OF 2014 COMMON ORDER: 1. I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 are filed seeking permission of this Court to compound the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”), in C.C. No.21 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu, and for recording the compromise arrived at between the accused/petitioner and the de facto complainants/ respondents 2 and 3. 2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. Perused the impugned order. 3. The instant Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment, dated 13.01.2014, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, in Crl.A. No.249 of 2012. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in C.C. No.21 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu, and was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 324 IPC. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and by judgment passed under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C., convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six -4- CRL.R.C.No.53 of 2014 Date of order:27.02.2026 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 4. The learned counsels for the parties submit that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in pursuance of the settlement, they have filed a joint memo of compromise. It is further submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the same may be taken on record and the conviction recorded against the petitioner may be set aside by compounding the offence. 5. Perused the joint memo filed by both the parties. 6. On a plain reading of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., it appears that the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is not compoundable. However, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “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 wrongdoing that seriously endangers 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 -5- CRL.R.C.No.53 of 2014 Date of order:27.02.2026 and threatens well-being of 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 the 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.l.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.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in another case, Krishnappa and Others v. State of Karnataka2, has observed how offences which are not compoundable in nature can nevertheless be quashed by the High Court by exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 11 to 13, it was held as follows: “11. True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported 2 Crl.A.No.1488 of 2012 decided on 29.09.2021 -6- CRL.R.C.No.53 of 2014 Date of order:27.02.2026 exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. 12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. 13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non- heinous offences or where the offences are pre- dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the -7- CRL.R.C.No.53 of 2014 Date of order:27.02.2026 circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.(2014) 6 SCC 466..” 8. Having perused the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned hereinabove, it appears that the parties have amicably settled the matter between themselves in the presence of elders and well-wishers. The de facto complainants and the accused are personally appeared before this Court. The de facto complainants have submitted that they are satisfied with the terms of the compromise and voluntarily signed joint memo. Considering all aspects, although the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is generally non-compoundable, in the present situation, since the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and are residing peacefully, this Court is not inclined to disturb the harmony between them. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this is a fit case where the Court can exercise its -8- CRL.R.C.No.53 of 2014 Date of order:27.02.2026 extraordinary inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. It appears that subjecting the petitioner to incarceration would not serve the interests of the parties or the harmony in society. 10. Accordingly, in my view, compounding the offence against the present petitioner will serve substantial justice to the parties. Hence, the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. committed by the petitioner is compounded at the instance of the de facto complainants by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order of conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Sathyavedu, in C.C. No.21 of 2009 and confirmed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, in Crl.A.No.249 of 2012, is hereby set aside in terms of the compromise between the parties. The petitioner be set at liberty; the sureties standing in his favour are also discharged. 11. With the above observations, I.A. Nos.2 and 3 and instant criminal revision case are disposed of. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall sand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA BV