IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings in cases of private disputes that have been amicably settled.

ORDER :

1. Assailing the judgment dated 13.07.2011 in Crl. Appeal No. 381 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against petitioner/accused by the judgment dated 19.11.2010 in C.C. No. 2006 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajahmundry, for the offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 18.07.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused was suspended, vide orders in Crl. R.C. M.P. No. 2168 of 2011.

3. Pending criminal revision case, I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2024 were filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2/PW-1/de facto complainant along with joint memo to record the compromise and permit them to compound the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

4. Today, the petitioner by name G. Nagendrudu as well 2nd respondent/PW-1/de facto complainant by name Rajana Venkata Ramana are present in-person before this Court and submitted that they have settled the matter amicably on the advice of elders and sought permission of this Court to compound the offence. The parties were identified by their respective counsel.

5. Now, it is needless to mention that the High Court has to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the circumstances so warrants such an invocation. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very clear that it may be used its inherent power to meet the ends of justice or found to continue the proceedings would be abuse of process of Court or otherwise to meet the ends of justice to the parties.

6. This Court is conscious of the fact that the inherent power used under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is discretionary, sparingly and cautiously to prevent misuse and while using it should also be conscious. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts laid guidelines, when the inherent powers can be invoked, where there is an abuse of process of the Court or to meet the ends of justice the Court can invoke inherent jurisdiction.

7. In this connection, it is relevant to make a mention a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS, 2006 AIR SCW 3990 wherein had laid down the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which are as follows:

“Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle “quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exe