*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA +TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.267 of 2009 and TR.CRLPMP No.209 of 2010 in TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.267 of 2009 % 22.07.2010 BETWEEN: # Nadiminti Triveni … PETITIONER(S) AND $ State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENT(S) ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri K.Venkat Rao ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri G.Nageswara Rao <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED: 1. AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1386 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.267 of 2009 and TR.CRLPMP No.209 of 2010 in TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.267 of 2009 Between: Nadiminti Triveni ..... APPELLANT(S) AND State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.267 of 2009 and TR.CRLPMP No.209 of 2010 in TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.267 of 2009 ORDER: Transfer Criminal Petition No.267 of 2009 is a petition seeking transfer of C.C.No.309 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bapatla, to any Court preferably in Srikakulam District or in the alternative to the Courts at Districts of Visakhapatnam or East Godavari. When this matter was taken up on 14.12.2009, a learned Judge of this Court admitted the petition and granted interim stay of all further proceedings. The facts, in brief, that lead to the filing of the petition, are as follows: The petitioner, by name, Nadiminti Triveni, who was cited as L.W.1 in C.C.No.309 of 2009 has joined the 1st year B.Tech (Agriculture) in Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, College of Agricultural Engineering, Bapatla, during October 2008 and she was staying in one of the hostels attached to the university. As she was a new comer and was staying in the hostel, she was subjected to severe prolonged ragging by her seniors i.e. the accused Nos.1 to 5. Unable to bear the said torture which is in the nature of ragging the petitioner tried to commit suicide by consuming hair dye and tablets on 27.02.2009 and when she became unconscious she was taken to a private hospital where she was treated for about 25 days and after her recovery she was discharged from the hospital on 21.03.2009. As the petitioner by name Triveni tried to commit suicide, initially a case in Crime No.48 of 2009 of Bapatla Police Station was registered under Section 309 of IPC, but after recording her statement, the same was altered and the said crime was registered against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 4(i)(ii)(iii) and 7(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997 (for short – ‘the Act’), Act. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bapatla, against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 4(i)(ii)(iii) of the Act only. As there was pressure on the de facto complainant i.e. Triveni/LW1 to withdraw the case, she took transfer certificate from the College of Agricultural Engineering, Bapatla, and joined in B.Sc., at Srikakulam. As she is residing at Srikakulam and it is causing any amount of inconvenience to her, she approached this Court and filed the present transfer application. As stated supra, this matter was admitted and stay was granted. When this matter was listed before this Court, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner and the accused are students and their future is at stake, this Court advised some sort of settlement and directed the parties to appear before this Court on 08.07.2010 and accordingly the accused with their parents and the petitioner with her parents appeared before this Court. The petitioner narrated as to how the things have taken place and the accused also have given their version. However, as stated supra, as the petitioner as well as the accused/respondent Nos.2 to 6 are all students of agricultural engineering and if the case against the accused ends in conviction, their future would be at stake, this Court advised them to come forward with a memorandum of compromise and adjourned the matter. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing a memorandum of compromise in Tr.Crl.P.M.P.No.209 of 2010, signed by all the parties, is filed in the following manner. “1) The petitioner in the above Tr. Crl. Petition No.267 of 2009 is victim/LW1 in CC No.309/2009 on the file of JFCM, Bapatla, wherein respondents 2 to 6 herein are accused of offences punishable under Section 4 (i) (ii) (iii) of AP Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997. 2) The above Tr. Crl. Petition No.267/2009 when listed for hearing before this Hon’ble Court, this Hon’ble Court was of the view that the matter requires to be settled between parties, as the petitioner herein and Respondents 2 to 6 are students, and directed the appearance of the petitioner herein and respondents 2 to 6 before this Hon’ble Court on 08.07.2010 at 10.30 a.m., consequent thereon, the petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 accompanied by their parents appeared before this Hon’ble Court on 08.07.2010, and at the intervention of elders and well wishers it was decided that Respondents 2 to 6 herein collectively shall pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) to the petitioner/LW-1, as LW-1 had discontinued her Ag. B. Tech subsequent to the incident of ragging. 3) In pursuance of the above, Respondents 2 to 6 herein agreed to pay the above sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner/LW1/Victim and is paying Rs.1,50,000/- by way of Demand Draft (s) bearing No.052026, 052027, 052028 and 052030 dated 21-07-2010 drawn on SBH Bank, Tarnaka Br., in favour of the petitioner / LW-1, towards full and final settlement of the above CC No.309/2009 pending on the file of JFCM, Bapatla. 4) In view of the same, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to compound the offence of Section 4 (i) (ii) (iii) of A.P. Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997 pending trial in CC No.309/2009 on the file of JFCM, Bapatla and acquit the respondents 2 to 6 (accused 1 to 5) of the offences, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” In the light of the compromise entered into between the parties, and the present application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to get the proceedings quashed by way of compounding the offences, this Court looked into the various provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997. The word ‘ragging’ means doing the act of teasing, taunting, playing a practical joke upon some one or holding comic parties and other activities during certain period of a collegian. Thus, it has both positive and negative manifestation. But, of-late, it has become a menace and under the guise of ragging so many untoward incidents such as disorderly conduct, excitement by rough and rude treatment by rough handling which causes or is likely to cause annoyance, undue hardship, physical or psychological harm, or apprehension or fear in a fresher etc., are taking place. Though ragging has a chequered history it has not assumed monstrous preparations. The incidents of ragging in educational institutions, more particularly in higher educational institutions, were hitherto dealt with at the institution level i.e. by the respective colleges. However, when so many serious incidents of ragging are noticed along the country, several States have taken it up as an issue and thus introduced Prohibition of Ragging Acts of the respective States and in so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, an Act called the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997, was introduced and it came into force with effect from 04.07.1997. It may not be necessary to refer to various provisions of law referred to in the said Act and it is suffice to refer to Section 4 of the said Act, which deals with penalty for ragging and it reads as under. “4.Penalty for Ragging:-- Whoever, with the intention of causing ragging or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause ragging, commits or abets ragging and thereby,-- (i) teases or embarrasses or humiliates a student shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both; or (ii) assaults or uses criminal force to or criminally intimidates a student shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both; or (iii) wrongfully restrains or wrongfully confines or causes hurt to a student shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both; or (iv) causes grievous hurt to or kidnaps or abducts or rapes or commits unnatural offence with a student shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees; or (v) causes death or abets suicide shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with a fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. From the above provision of law it is clear that if a student is convicted, he shall be dismissed from the educational institution as provided for under Section 5 of the Act and a student may be suspended when once a complaint of ragging is made against him/her as provided for under Section 6 of the Act. Taking these things into consideration only, this Court advised the parties herein to get the matter compromised. This is an enactment which has come into force in the year 1997 and this Act is silent as to whether the offences falling under Section 4 of the Act are compoundable or not. Section 320 of Cr.P.C., which deals with compounding of offences, prescribes only those offences falling under the Indian Penal Code and it is silent with regard to the penal provisions of the special enactments. No doubt, this Court is conferred with extraordinary inherent jurisdiction as provided for under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but the point that falls for consideration is whether this Court can exercise its powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the Act is silent with regard to the compounding of offences. Apparently, the accused are all students aged less than 20 years and are studying 3rd year B.Tech (Agriculture) in Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, College of Agricultural Engineering, Bapatla, and in another one year they will be completing their education. Having seen the accused Nos.1 to 5 and their parents, this Court is of the view that they all belong to middle class agricultural families and with the hard earnings of the parents, these girl students/ accused are prosecuting their studies at Bapatla. It shall be noticed that there is no provision in the said Act to the effect that the said offences are not compoundable. If there is a specific provision stating that the offences falling under the Act are not compoundable, it may not be proper for this Court to exercise the inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the absence of any specific provision to that effect, this Court is of the view that this Court can exercise its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction and get the offence compounded taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration. As stated supra, the accused are all young girls aged less than 20 years coming from middle class background and if for any reason the case ends in conviction, their entire career gets spoiled. In B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana[1], the Supreme Court having considered the various judgments of the Apex Court held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 of Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to exercise of power for quashing. Of-course, the Supreme Court has also stated that every case depends on its own facts and circumstances. There their Lordships were dealing with an offence falling under Section 498-A of IPC. Section 498-A of IPC was introduced to curb the dowry harassment and also to prevent torture to women by her husband or his relatives and the proceedings therein have been initiated against the husband and in-laws at the instance of the wife under Section 498-A and thereafter the wife settled the disputes with her husband and his relatives and obtained divorce by mutual consent and an application was filed by the wife for quashing of the said proceedings initiated by her against the husband and his relatives. When the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the High Court of Haryana, the Supreme Court observed that it is not proper for the High Court to prevent women from settling earlier and that is not the object of the Chapter XX-A of the IPC. Similarly, in the instant case, the Act has come into force in the year 1997 only to curb the said menace of ragging and, on the ground that the said offence is not included in Section 320 of Cr.P.C., it is not proper for this Court to refuse to interfere and invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. After all, the Courts have to look after the welfare of society and so, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case i.e. the involvement of the students, their future, their career etc., this Court is of the considered view that this Court can definitely exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the said proceedings. Accordingly, Tr.CrlPMP No.209 of 1010 is allowed by recording the compromise and the proceedings in C.C.No.309 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bapatla, are hereby quashed. Consequently, since there is no need to pass any orders in the Transfer Criminal Petition No.267 of 2009, the same is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused/respondent Nos.2 to 6, if any, shall stand cancelled. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 22nd July 2010 CVRK Note: L.R. copy to be marked B/o CVRK [1] AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1386