Thorati Surya Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY I.A.Nos. 2 & 3 2018 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7470 OF 2018 ORDER:

I.A.Nos. 2 & 3 OF 2018 These miscellaneous petitions are filed seeking permission of this Court to record compromise and compound the offences in P.R.C.No.2 of 2017 on the file of VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajamahendravaram, against the petitioners herein/Accused 2 to 9, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 406, 323 r/w 509 & 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST POA Act.

The second respondent filed a complaint before the police. On the strength of the complaint, crime was registered and the police issued F.I.R. At the crime stage, both the parties entered into compromise, settled the claims against one another and decided not to proceed against one another, thereby, resolved the dispute amicably.

Both the petitioners and second respondent are present and they are identified by their respective counsels and produced Photostat copies of Aadhar cards to prove their identity. When terms of compromise are explained in vernacular language, they are admitted to be true and correct. Further, it is now submitted that, petitioners and second respondent have voluntarily entered into compromise due to intervention of elders and well-wishers and they wanted to lead peaceful life in future.

The offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST POA Act, though not compoundable, it can be compounded with the

MSM,J CrlP_7470_2018 permission of the Court. Moreover, the Apex Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab1 issued guidelines to quash the proceedings in cases where the offences involved are noncompoundable. Hence, taking into consideration the facts of the case, leave is granted to compound the offence to maintain peace and harmony between the parties. Therefore, I find that the compromise is voluntary, in the interest of both parties and permission is granted to compound the offence.

Hence, compromise is recorded in terms of the joint memo filed along with these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are ordered. Crl.P.NO.7470 OF 2018 In view of the orders passed by this Court in I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2018, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.2 of 2017 on the file of VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Rajamahendravaram, against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

Registry is directed to annex a copy of joint memo filed by both the parties, to this order.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 08.08.2018 SP 1 (2014) 6 SCC 466