B.Venugopal vs. State Of Ap

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU Crl.P.No.2858 of 2019

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to compound the matter by setting aside the judgment dated 12.05.2017 passed in SC.No.219 of 2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District. The petitioner/Accused No.1 was convicted of offences under Section 376 r/w 511 and 354 IPC in Sessions Case No.219 of 2014 by order dated 12.05.2017. The FIR is dated 11.06.2014. Charge sheet is dated 01.07.2014. An appeal appears to have been filed (in Criminal Appeal No.202 of 2017) on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nellore as can be seen from the prayer.

This Court has heard Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Raveendra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant and learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and complainant is that they have compromised the matter and so this Court must exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; compound the offences and consequently allow Criminal Appeal No.202 of 2017. The learned counsel relies upon the case of Amit Rod and others v. State of

Uttarakhand and others1 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab and other2.

Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand states that these judgments are passed by two High Courts and are not in line with a series of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India starting from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another3 onwards.

This Court also notices a later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan4 which followed Gian Sing's (3 supra) case. Both these judgments were rendered by three judges Bench. They have clearly held that heinous offences like rape; murder etc., are crimes against society and that they should not be compounded. Even the timing of the settlement was held to be important. Settlements arrived at soon after alleged commission of the offence or when the matter was under investigation etc., were directed to be considered liberally. Post trial and post conviction cases are not to be compounded. Even in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Ashok Kumar (2 supra), the FIR was registered on 20.10.2017 and the compromise was

• ³ 2012 (10) SCC 303
• ⁴ AIR 2019 SC 1296

2

¹ MANU/UC/0773/2018

² AIR 1977 SC 109

affected on 23.10.2017 (within 3 days). Hence, the same was compounded.

In view of the fact that the present application is filed at the appellate stage by the petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is of the opinion that the case cannot be compounded both in view of the offence (376 IPC) and also due to the timing.

Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date : .07.2019 KLP