The specific provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 11 of 2003 regarding the compounding of offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, including the requirement of a three-month observation period and the implications of withdrawal of consent, were central to the court's decision.

ORDER :

The petitioner is Accused No.1 in C.C.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge/Judicial First Class Magistrate at Puttaparthi, for offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 506 of I.P.C. read with Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The petitioner herein along with other accused in the case had compromised the matter with the de facto complainant and the trial Court on 26.06.2021 had acquitted all the accused on the basis of the said compromise after noting that the observation period is three months. Thereafter, the de facto complainant had filed a memo stating that she was not willing to compromise. On that basis, the trial Court by an order dated 20.07.2021 had reopened the case and posted it to 09.08.2021.

3. Aggrieved by the said reopening of the case, the petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present criminal petition. It may also be noted that accused Nos.4 and 5 had also approached this Court, by way of Crl.P.No.5710 of 2021 which was disposed of on 11.11.2022, directing the petitioners to undergo trial while dispensing with their presence in the course of the trial.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Another vs. Jalour Singh and Ors., reported in Civil Appeal No.522 of 2008 dated 18.01.2008 to contend that the compromise recorded on 26.06.2021 cannot be set aside except by approaching this Court, by way of a writ petition. The relevant passage in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is as follows :

12. It is true that where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the memo that is said to have been filed by the petitioner, withdrawing case, is not available in the Court records and the order of the Magistrate which is based on the memo has to be quashed.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that whatever actually filed was not a memo but was a petition.

7. The contention of the petitioner that in the normal course, the award of Lok-Adalat can only be challenged by way of a writ petition before this Court, in view of the Judgment cited by the petitioner requires to be accepted.

8. However, the amendment to Section 320 of Cr.P.C by way of A.P Amendment Act 11 of 2003 requires to be noted.

STATE AMENDMENT

Andhra Pradesh:- The following item and entries shall be inserted.

9. T