IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA APHC010600022024 PRADESH [3327]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9771/2024 Between:

Chadalavada Aravinda Babu and ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

Others AND The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. PONNEKANTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2. POPURI LAKSHMI PRIYANVITA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY IA Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 in/and Criminal Petition No.9771 of 2024

Common Order:

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners herein/A1 to A11, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.60 of 2024 of Narsaraopet II Town Police Station, Palnadu District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 307, 324, 326 and 506 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs and the STs (PoA), Act and Section 125 of the R.P.

Act.

2. 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 I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 seeking to permit them to compound the offences and to record the compromise.

3. It is stated by 2^nd respondent-defacto complainant in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos.2 of 2024 and 3 of 2024 that the matter was settled amicably at the instance of elders and well wishers, outside the Court, and due to small misunderstanding between him and the petitioners, the present complaint was lodged.

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