Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kona Venkata Rao Venkat vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
APHC010017592025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3368]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 504/2025
Between:
Kona Venkata Rao @ Venkat and ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
Others
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. BALA KRISHNA T
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
IA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2025
in/and
Criminal Petition No:504 OF 2025
C O M M O N O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed
on behalf of the petitioners herein/Accused, to quash the proceedings
in F.I.R No.97 of 2024 of Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatla District
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 IPC,
3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act, read with 34 IPC.
2. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the
petitioners herein/Accused, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de
facto complainant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing
the State are present before this Court. The complainant and accused
produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for 2nd
respondent identified their parties in the open Court. The concerned
police officer is present before this Court and identified the parties.
3. This Court questioned the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant
with regard to compromise, and he categorically stated to the extent
that he has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners
herein/Accused and there is no threat, coercion or undue influence in
arriving at the compromise. This Court is satisfied with the identification
3
of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. In view
of the compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction are
remote and bleak.
4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab & another,1 held at paragraph No.57, as under:
“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarized 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 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 in1
2012 (9) Scale 257
4relation 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.”
5
5. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and
as the parties have entered into a compromise, and compounded the
offences, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R
No.97 of 2024 of Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatla District is hereby
quashed.
6. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 and Criminal Petition
No.504 of 2025 are allowed.
As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any,
pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
Date: 21.01.2025
PSA
6
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
IA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2025
in/and
Criminal Petition No:504 OF 2025
Date: 21.01.2025
PSA
[ad_1]
Source link