Gubbala Nageswara Rao and others vs State

This criminal revision case is sought to be filed by the accused in CC No. 164 of 1994 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, questioning the orders passed by the Magistrate on 17-9-1997 dismissing the petition in Crl. MP No.2654 of 1997 in the above said CC.164 of 1994.

The police filed charge-sheet against the present petitioners who are accused in Crime No.2 of 1994 of Penugonda Police Station for the offence under Sections 500 and 506(1) read with Section 34 IPC. The said case was registered on the basis of the complaint given by the de facto-complainant alleging that as herself and LWs.2 to 6 did not oblige the accused in giving money for performing pujas, they were declared as out-caste and were ex-communicated by the accused and thereby the accused are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 506(1) IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

During the pendency of the trial of the case, LW1 who is the de facto-complainant compounded the offence with the accused and they filed Crl. M.P. No.2654 of 1997 requesting the Court to grant permission for compounding the offence. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition by the impugned order dated 17-9-1997 observing that the persons who are alleged to have defended by the accused are the de facto-complainant as well as LWs.2 to 6 but LWs.2 to 6 have not compounded the offence with the accused and as such LWs.1 cannot be permitted to compound the offence and the accused cannot be acquitted.

Questioning the above said order of the Magistrate, the accused have chosen to file the present revision.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners was heard before admission.

It is seen from a perusal of the averments in the charge-sheet and it is also not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the persons who are said to have been defamed arc the de facto-complainant who is LW1 in the charge-sheet as well as LWs.2 to 6 who are the other family members of LW1. LW1 gave the complaint against the accused and it was registered as Crime No.2 of 1994 of Penugonda Police Station for the offences under Sections 500 and 506(1) read with Section 34 IPC, and subsequently the charge-sheet was filed against all the accused for the offence u/s 500 IPC and LWs. 1 to 6 are cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet. Section 320 Cr. PC clearly shows that for an offence u/s 500 IPC the person by whom the offence may be compounded is "the person defamed". In the present case the persons defamed are LWs.1 to 6. Even though LW1 alone went and gave the complaint to the police, as already stated above the charge-sheet also clearly mentions that LWs.1 to 6 were ex-communicated and they are the persons who are defamed by the accused. Therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly found that the offence cannot be permitted to be compounded with LW1 alone and the accused cannot be acquitted on such compromise.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners further tried to contend that u/s 199 Cr. PC no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (within which Section 500 IPC comes) except upon a complaint-made by some person aggrieved by the offence. That person who gave the complaint in the present case and who is aggrieved of the offence, according to the learned Counsel, is LW1 only and therefore the offence can be compounded with LW1 alone without having the necessity of LWs.2 to 6 also joining in compounding the offence and the lower Court has therefore, erred in dismissing the petition. But that contention is without any substance. Section 199 Cr, PC clearly provides that in the case of an offence u/s 500 IPC the Court can take cognizance of the offence only when the aggrieved person, the person who is said to have been defamed gives the complaint. Section 199 Cr. PC comes into picture only for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offence and not for the purpose of compounding the offence. Section 320 Cr. PC alone deals with the cases of compounding the offences. As already stated above, the offence u/s 500 IPC can be compounded only by "the person defamed" and the persons defamed in the present case admittedly are LWs.1 to 6. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly come to the conclusion that unless LWs.2 to 6 also join in compounding the offence, the accused cannot be permitted to compound the offence and cannot be acquitted.

In the decisions reported in AIR 1937 12 (Nagpur) and Paresh Nath Koyal and Others Vs. Emperor, also, it is clearly held that when there are more than one person who are the effected persons, all of them have to join in compounding the offences and for acquitting the accused on such compounding of the offence and that it is not sufficient if one person who has given the complaint to the police alone chooses to compound the offence with the accused for recording the compromise and for acquitting the accused. Therefore, in the present case also as LWs.2 to 6 are also said to be the persons defamed and as they did not join LW1 in compounding the offence, the accused cannot be acquitted by permitting them to compound the offence with LW1.

But as far as compounding of the offence with LW1 who is one of the persons defamed is concerned, there cannot be any objection, but it cannot have the effect of acquitting the accused on the ground of such compromise in view of the feet that LWs.2 to 6 have not compounded the offence.

Therefore, under the above circumstances it is not a fit case where the revision case can be admitted. The criminal revision case is dismissed at the stage of admission.