CRLA/1707/2006 of Pathi Mudium Ramanaiah, Vs The State of A.P., on 30 December 2013

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/A.1challenging the Judgment, dated 28.11.2006, in SC ST SC No.3 of2003, passed by the Hon’ble Special Judge for Trial of Cases underScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989, Kurnool, whereby the trial Judge found the appellant/A.1guilty for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA)Act, and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant/A.1 tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fineof Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default, to suffer simpleimprisonment for one month.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for theappellant/A.1 has filed an affidavit sworn by the complainant/P.W.1,stating that the complainant/P.W.1 seeks permission of this Court tocompound the offence. The parties are present in the Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though theoffence registered against the appellant/A.1 is non-compoundable, theCourt has the power to permit the parties to enter into compromise, asper the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v State ofPunjab (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 theground of settlement between an offender and victim is not thesame thing as compounding of offence. They are different andnot interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power ofcompounding of offences given to a Court under Section 320

is materially different from the quashing of criminalproceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherentjurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminalcourt is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section320 and the Court is guided solely and squarely thereby while,on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Courtfor quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding orcriminal complaint is guided by the material on record as towhether the ends of justice would justify such exercise ofpower although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal ordismissal of indictment.

5 4 . Where the High Court quashes a criminalproceeding having regard to the fact that disputebetween the offender and victim has been settledalthough offences are not compoundable, it does so as inits opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will bean exercise in futility and justice in the case demands thatthe dispute between the parties is put to an end andpeace is restored; securing the ends of justice being theultimate guiding factor. … … In respect of serious offenceslike murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mentaldepravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude underspecial statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or theoffences committed by public servants while working in thatcapacity, the settlement between offender and victim canhave no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences whichoverwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour havingarisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,partnership or such like transactions or the offences arisingout of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry etc., or thefamily dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and theoffender and victim have settled all disputes between themamicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have notbeen made compoundable, the High Court may within theframework of its inherent power, quash the criminalproceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R., if it is satisfiedthat on the face of such settlement, there is hardly anylikelihood of offender being convicted and by notquashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall becasualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The abovelist is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case willdepend on its own facts and no hard and fast categorycan be prescribed.

(emphasis supplied)

This Court, relying on the said Judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court, is of the view that though the offence is non-compoundable, it may be permitted to compound the offence.Accordingly, parties are permitted to compound the offence. Theaffidavit filed by the complainant/P.W.1 shall form part of the record.

In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the convictionand sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant/A.1 and theappellant/A.1 is hereby acquitted of the charge. The bail bonds shallstand cancelled and the sureties stand discharged. Fine amount, if anypaid by the appellant/A.1 shall be returned to him.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shallstand closed.

_____________________

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO