Telangana High Court
CRLP/14007/2018 of Jammalamadugu Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of A.P. on 28 December 2018
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO I.A.No.1/2018 in Crl.P.No.14007/2018 and Crl.P.No.14007/2018 COMMON ORDER: The defacto complainant and her counsel Sri M.Chalapathi, are present. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 and their counsel Sri Nagaraju Naguru, are present. Both parties are identified by their
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
I.A.No.1/2018 in Crl.P.No.14007/2018and
Crl.P.No.14007/2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
The defacto complainant and her counsel Sri M.Chalapathi, are present. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 and their counsel Sri Nagaraju Naguru, are present. Both parties are identified by their respective counsel. Accused Nos.3 to 7 are represented by Accused No.2 who is their GPA Holder.
2) Heard both sides and perused the petitions.
3) The defacto complainant lodged a report with the police of Ponnalur PS and the same was registered as Crime No.57/2012 and after investigation charge sheet was filed for the offences under Section 498A, 114, 323, 448 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short “DP Act”) before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukur and cognizance was taken by the said Court and case was registered as C.C.No.47 of 2013.
4) At this stage, accused filed Crl.P.No.14007 of 2018 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.47 of 2013.
5) Pending the Criminal Petition, both parties filed I.A.No.1 of 2018 seeking permission of this Court to compound the offences alleged in the C.C.No.47 of 2013. In the said I.A, it was mentioned that both parties have amicably settled all their disputes at the intervention of elders and they are proposing to compound the offences involved in C.C.No.47 of 2013 and hence permission may be granted to them.
6) On enquiry by this Court, both the parties affirmed the contents in joint memo. The offences alleged in C.C.No.47 of 2013 are under Sections 498A, 114, 323, 448 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act. Offences under sections 323 and 448 IPC are compoundable under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C; Section 498A IPC is also compoundable but with the permission of the Court vide Andhra Pradesh State Amendment Act 11 of 2003, section 2 w.e.f. 01.08.2003. Sofaras Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act are concerned, they are non-compoundable. However, in Manohar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another[1], the Apex Court while dealing with the question as to the compoundability of the offences under Section 4 of D.P.Act and Section 498A IPC, after referring several decisions observed that though Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act were not compoundable, however, if there is a genuine compromise between husband and wife, criminal complaints arising out of matrimonial discord can be quashed, even if the offences alleged therein are non-compoundable, because such offences are personal in nature and do not have repercussions on the society unlike heinous offences like murder, rape, etc. If the High Court forms an opinion that it is necessary to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice, the High Court can do so.
7) In the light of above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, when the case on hand is vetted, Section 498A IPC is compoundable under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C after lapse of a minimum period of three months from the date of request or application for compromise is made before a Court. In the instant case, the said period is not completed. However, in Manohar Singh’s case (1 supra), the Apex Court held that exercising power under Section 482 of the Code is not inhibited by Section 320 of the Code. Therefore and in view of parties have genuinely settled all their disputes and no additional purpose will be served by keeping them awaited for three months, the said requirement is dispensed with. Similarly, exercising the plenary power under Section 482 of the Code, the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, though not compoundable, are permitted to be compounded. It shall be noted, the instant case is a matrimonial dispute and purely a private one and the same has no impact on the society. Further, from the submission of both the parties, they have settled all their disputes and pending cases at the intervention of elders.
8) With the above observations, I.A.No.1 of 2018 is allowed and the parties are permitted to compound the offences in C.C.No.47 of 2013. Consequently, the Criminal Petition No.14007 of 2018 is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.47 of 2013 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukur, are quashed and petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 8 are acquitted of the charges for which they have been charged.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Date: 28.12.2018 scs
_________________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J