POGIRI LAXMI HAYATHNAGAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the order in Crl.M.(P.Nos. 57/97 and 58/97 in S.C.No. 323/95 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at Saroornagar, dated 4-4-1997. The affidavit of the defacto complainant Smt. Pogiri Laxmi W/ o Tata Rao is filed in support of this petition on.

(2.) On the complaint of the first petitioner-de facto complainant, the Station House Officer, Hayathnagar, registered a case under Section 354 I.P.C. against the second petitioner-accused and the charge-sheet in that case culminated in S.C.No. 323/95 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. When the case reached the stage of 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the parties appear to have compromised the matter with the intervention of elders and thereupon she filed Crl.M.P.No. 57/97 and Crl.M.P.No. 58/97 seeking permission of the Court for compounding the said offence under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge refused permission on the ground that by an amendment in 1992 the punishment has been enhanced from two years to seven years and a minimum imprisonment of five years is prescribed for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. and the same is made triable by a Court of Sessions but the same has not been omitted from the purview of Section 322 and 320 (2) Cr.P.C. by the State Legislature by oversight. Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge failed to exercise the discretion in a judicious manner and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is also heard.

(3.) I carefully considered the above contentions and perused Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. It is not in dispute that the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. is compoundable with the permission of the Court by the woman assaulted to whom the criminal force was used." Petitioner No. 1 is the woman assaulted to whom the criminal force was used and petitioner No. 2 is the accused against whom the above allegation is made. When the elders of the locality have intervened and brought about a compromise between the parties, the discretion vested in the Court is exercised in favour of granting permission so that peace and tranquility in the locality is maintained.