APHC010447022021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6537 OF 2021 Between:

S. Venkata Ramana Reddy @

Venkata Ramana Reddy S.K. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused:

1. D S N V PRASAD BABU Counsel for the Respondents/Complainant(S):

1. KAMATAM NAGENDRA REDDY

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 in/and Criminal Petition No.6537 of 2021

Common Order:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.SC No.9 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor district (arising out of FIR No.523 of 2020 of Punganur Urban Police Station, Chittoor district).

2. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 341 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Amendment Act, 2015.

3. It is represented that both the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of the Court at the intervention of their elders and well wishers. In view of the settlement arrived between both the parties, they filed IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 seeking to permit them to compound the offences and to record the compromise.

4. Today, when the matter is taken up, petitioner and 2^nd respondent herein are present before this Court. They produced their Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for 2^nd respondent have identified both the parties in the open Court. This Court has questioned the de facto complainant with regard to compromise and he has categorically stated to that extent that he has voluntarily entered into compromise with the accused.

5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another,, 2012 (9) Scale 257 the Hon’ble Apex court held thus: (para 57)

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though

the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences ar