APHC010119932020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2025 In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 251/2020 Between:

1.VELPULA YESURATHNAM, S/O MOSHE, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O PATHA REPUDI VILLAGE, A.KONDURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND

1.STATE OF AP, .Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravathi, through,A.Koduru P.S., Krishna District ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.K V L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER

I.A.No.1 of 2025

I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed to implead the Petitioner/de-facto complainant

as Respondent No.2 in the Criminal Revision Case. The Petitioner in the I.A.No.1 of 2025 is the victim/de-facto complainant, she is required to be heard before disposing of the matter. Therefore, as a per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra1 she is impleaded as Respondent No.2 in the Criminal Revision Case.

Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments.

Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed.

I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2025 I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed to permit the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2/victim to compound the offence as there was a settlement arrived at in between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2. The learned Trial Court convicted the Petitioner for the charge under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The learned Appellate Court also confirmed the same. Offence punishable under Section 326 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is not a compoundable offence as per Section 320 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Therefore, the request for compounding the offence cannot be entertained.

However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramawatar v. State of M.P² held that the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or this Court under 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ in order to do complete justice in appropriate cases having due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant willing entered into a settlement/compromise can

1 (2002) 4 SCR 536

2 (2022) 13 SCC 635

quash the proceedings in respective of their constitutional/inherent powers by relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surendra Nath Mohanty v.

State of Orissa3 In the instant case the Respondent No.2 and the other two accused who are present before this Court has submitted that the victims have settled their scores with the accused at the intervention of the family and village elders. The parties, namely the accused and the victims, are close relatives. The Accused has paid on earlier occasion substantial amount towards compromising the case and also towards the medical expenditure. Even today the accused has paid in total Rs.30,000/- to the victims towards fulfilling the final settlement.

The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 and other victims are living in same village. They said this compromise would bring harmony in their family and also in the village. Therefore, to promote the harmony among the family they want to compromise the matter and urged to pass necessary orders in the interest of justice.

Considering the entire gamut of the case, as the offence is not compoundable, this Court is not inclined to grant permission to Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant to compound the offence with the petitioner. However, in view of the amicable settlement has been arrived at and the Petitioner has paid substantial amounts towards compensation to the respondent No.2 and other victims, this Court is inclined to quash the

3 (1999) 5 SCC 238

proceedings in the interest of justice under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’

Accordingly, I.A.No.2 is disposed of.

In view of the quashment of the proceedings on the file of the learned XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Nuzvid vide Crl.A.No.253/2018, the proceedings in C.C.No.859/2015 on the file of th