IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compromises in non-heinous offenses can lead to quashing of convictions under inherent powers, emphasizing justice and the nature of the offense.

ORDER :

V. Srinivas, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 03.06.2008 in Crl.A.No.151 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against petitioner/accused by the judgment dated 26.06.2006 in S.C.No.126 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge at Kakinada, for the offence under section 498(A) 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 06.06.2008 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1062 of 2008.

3. Pending criminal revision case, I.A.Nos.4 and 6 of 2023 were filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3/P.Ws.4 and 3 to record the compromise and permit them to compound the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

4. Today, the petitioner by name Lingamsetti Baburao as well his sons by name L.Durga Prasanna and L.Manikanta and respondent Nos.2 and 3 heerein by name Gandham Bhavani/P.W.4 and Laisetti Chandra Sekhar/P.W.3 are present in-person before this Court and submitted that they have settled the matter amicably on the advice of elders. The parties were identified by their respective counsel.

5. It is not in dispute that the present revision is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentences passed under Section 498-A of IPC. On the other day i.e., on 13.10.2023, when the matter was listed for recording compromise, in view of the mandatory provision under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C., postponed the same for three (3) months.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 inh