SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 1402

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.
Pitti Naga Raju - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2024 in Criminal Petition No. 613 of 2024
Decided On : 09-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Public Prosecutor and T.S.N. Sudhakar, Advocate

The court can quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC based on a voluntary compromise, balancing the objectives of the SC/ST Act with the nature of the offence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - SC and STs (POA) Act, 1989 - Quashing of proceedings - Compromise between parties - The petitioner sought to quash proceedings based on a voluntary compromise with the de facto complainant, who expressed no objection to the quashing. The court noted that the compromise was amicable and voluntary, and the chances of conviction were remote. (Paras 1, 6, 10)

(B) Inherent powers of the High Court - The court emphasized that its powers under Section 482 are to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, allowing quashing of proceedings when a compromise is reached. (Paras 7, 8)

(C) Nature of offences under SC/ST Act - The court acknowledged that while the SC/ST Act aims to protect vulnerable communities, it can quash proceedings if the offence is primarily civil in nature and the underlying objectives of the Act are not contravened. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a tractor driver, was accused of abusing and assaulting another driver based on caste. A case was registered under IPC and SC/ST Act. The parties reached a compromise with the intervention of elders.

Findings of Court:
The court found the compromise voluntary and quashed the proceedings, stating that the chances of conviction were remote.

Issues: The main issues were whether the compromise was voluntary and if the court could quash proceedings under the SC/ST Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it could quash proceedings based on a voluntary compromise, emphasizing the need to balance the objectives of the SC/ST Act with the nature of the offence.

Result: Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

ORDER :

(B.S. Bhanumathi, J.)

1. The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('the CrPC) is filed to record the compromise and seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.107 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC and STs (POA) Act, Nellore.

2. The facts in the present case are briefly as follows:

Thirumalasetti Adivaiah is working as tractor driver with the accused. On 08.08.2018, he accepted the request of another tractor driver to transport gravel dust. While so doing, to reach rice go-down situated opposite to Government College, at about 12 noon, the accused followed him, stopped his car, and asked LW1 to get into the car. When the accused got into the car, the accused abused him in filthy language in the name of his caste. The accused also slapped on the left cheek with his right hand and pressed with his hand on his chest on the ground that he joined as driver without intimating him. Basing on the statement of LW1, a case in Crime No.212 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(l)(r)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, was registered by Gudur II Town Police and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused.

3. Pending the criminal petition, I.A.Nos. 2 & 3 of 2024 are filed by the petitioner/accused under Sections 320(2) and 320 (6) CrPC, requesting to permit the parties to compound the offence and to record the compromise between the parties and consequently to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.107 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC and STs (POA) Act, Nellore.

4. When the matter was taken up, petitioner and the second respondent/de facto complainant are present. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing R-1/State is present. H.C.(1897), Gudur II Town Police Station, Nellore District is present and identified the parties. That apart, they are identified with their original Adhar cards, photostat copies of which were already filed.

5. Both parties submitted that due to the intervention of the elders, the matter is amicably settled and that they voluntarily settled the issue. The second respondent/de facto complainant expressed that there is no objection to quash the case against the petitioner/accused.

6. The terms of compromise are reduced into writing in the form of a joint memorandum of compromise, which is signed by the parties and their counsels. The contents of the joint memo read as follows:

    "1. I submit that basing on my report, a case in Crime No.212 of 2018 was registered by the 1st respondent against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323 IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act. The 1st respondent police filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide Spl.S.C.No.107 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC and STs (POA) Act, 1989 Nellore. The above criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.107 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC and STs (POA) Act, 1989 Nellore.

    2. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner/accused and 2nd respondent compromised at the intervention of the elders and well wishers of both the parties with an understanding that all of them shall live peacefully without an disputes or enmity between them. Accordingly, all of them are living peacefully and the 2nd respondent is not interested in prosecuting the case against petitioner herein."

7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted to pass appropriate orders in view of the peculiar circumstances and facts in the present case. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top