C JANARDHANA NAIDU Vs. R VASUDEVA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/accused filed this revision petition questioning the validity of the Order, dated 22-11-1993, passed by the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati in Cr1. M.P. No. 1566 of 1992 in C.C. No. 279 of 1991,on his file, dismissing the petition to record cornprornise. The first respondent-complainant filed a private cornplaint against the petitioner/accused in the lower Court for offences under Sections 500, 201 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The said private complaint was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C. 279 of 1991 under Sections 211 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. On 8-7-1992, a cornprornise petition signed by both the parties and their respective advocates was filed in the lower Court. On 29-10-1992, the first respondent/cornplainant filed an affidavit before the lower Court, stating that he signed the cornprornise petition on 8-7-1992 at the instance of certain elders and superior officials of the Tirurnala Tirupati Devasthanam, of which both of the first respondent/cornplainant and the petitioner/ accused are the ernployees, and that he did not sign the said cornprornise petition voluntarily. He requested the Court not to record the cornprornise. On 24-2-1993, the petitioner/accused filed an affidavit asserting that the allegation rnade by the first respondent/cornplainant to the effect that he signed the cornprornise petition under pressure frorn the superior officers of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanarn is not correct. The first respondent/cornplainant, on 23-3-1993, filed another application stating that the higher officials of the have not kept their prornise and, therefore, he is withdrawing the cornprornise petition. The matter was being posted for enquiry from time to time in the lower Court. The petitioner/accused also filed an application in the lower Court, contending that the prosecution under the private complaint filed by the first respondent/complainant against him is not maintainable as the necessary sanction for prosecuting him was not obtained earlier. The learned Magistrate, while keeping the respective petitions filed by the first respondent/complainant as well as the petitioner/accused, referred to above pending, posted the main C.c. No. 279 of 1991 for enquiry. Therefore, the first respondent/complainant filed Cr1. M.P. No. 1761 of 1993 in this Court, which was disposed of by Order, dated 22-7-1993, stating So, as long as these petitions are pending, the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate cannot proceed with the trial of the case. Under the circumstances, the II Additional Munsif Magistrate i s directed to dispose of these two petitions within three months after receipt of this order. Thereafter, present application - Cr1. M.P. No. 1566 of 1993 was dismissed by the lower Court on 22-11-1993, holding that the alleged compromise cannot be given effect to as the complainant has not signed the compromise petition voluntarily with free will. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is filed by the petitioner/accused.

(2.) Sri. C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused relying upon the decisions- K. Jagaram v. K. Satyavathi1 and B. Mukherjee v. State2, contended that, when once a compromise petition is filed for compounding the offences, the compromise will come into effect immediately, resulting in acquittal of the accused and, therefore, the enquiry into the private complaint against the petitioner/accused, cannot be proceeded with thereafter.

(3.) Sri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned Counsel for the first respondent/complainant, however, contended that when once the complain ant retracted from the compromise petition and filed an affidavit to that effect, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to conduct enquiry to find out as to whether the complainant signed the compromise petition voluntarily or not. He further contended that when the complaint pertains to compoundable as well as non-compoundable offences, which are inter-related, the Magistrate has no power to compound the offences.