Judgment:
ORDER
V. Eswaraiah, J.
1. Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari calling for records in relation to impugned Award dated 08.12.2006 passed by the Lok Adalat, Kurnool in C.C. No. 634 of 2005 on the file of the Honourable Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool and quash the same as it is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and to direct the Honourable Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool to proceed with the trial in C.C. No. 634 of 2005 against the accused/ respondents 2 and 3 herein.
2. It appears that one Ch. Uma Lakshmi, w/o. Yogeshwar Raju, r/o. Beechupalli, Mahabubnagar District, filed a private complaint on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool and the said Court referred the matter for investigation by the police. Accordingly, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool, IV Town Police Station, investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet for the offence under Sections 406, 417 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Funds Act in Cr. No. 146 of 2004.
3. Petitioner herein is L.W.3. It is stated in the charge sheet that the said complainant (L.W.1) was a member of the chit run by respondents 2 and 3 herein and L.Ws.2 to 21 were witnesses and also victims in the hands of the accused. In the charge sheet it is also stated that the complainant - L.W.1 joined in two chits run by the accused and paid Rs. 1,64,740/- whereas the petitioner (L.W.3) herein also joined as a member in two chits run by the accused and paid a sum of Rs. 90,260/- to the accused and her brother-in-law also joined in one lakh chit and paid Rs. 36,270/- but the accused failed to repay the said amount. Similarly, L.W.2 and L.W.4 to 21 joined the chits and the accused failed to repay them. Accordingly, the charge sheet was filed stating that the accused are liable to be punished for the offence under Sections 406, 417 and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the AP Chit Funds Act.
4. While so, the complainant namely, Ch. Uma Lakshmi, filed a petition before the Lok Adalat, Kurnool, stating that she, being the defacto-complainant, seeks to compromise the matter with the accused in the presence of the members of the Lok Adalat and in view of the terms of the compromise signed by the said complainant, the Lok Adalat passed the impugned award dated 08.12.2006 under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 compounding the aforesaid offence against the accused. Thereafter, L.W.21 -B. Ramanna, filed a petition before the Lok Adalat stating that she being one of the victims, the criminal case, though registered at the instance of the complainant - L.W.1, cannot be compounded and requested to continue the proceedings against the accused with regard to other victims except L.W.1. On the said petition, the accused were directed to attend the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool. Questioning the said order of the Lok Adalat dated 06.07.2007 directing the accused to present before the criminal Court. On 20.7.2007, the accused filed Crl.P. No. 5419 of 2007 before this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and this Court quashed the proceedings dated 06.07.2007 of the Lok Adalat in continuing the criminal case against the accused on the ground that once the Lok Adalat passed the order it becomes functus officio and therefore, it is not open to the Lok Adalat to reopen or re-try the case after acquitting the accused. However, it was observed that the only course left open, perhaps, is to challenge the award of Lok Adalat by way of a writ petition.
5. Pursuant to the said observation of this Court in Crl.P. No. 5419 of 2007 dated 02.07.2008, the petitioner (L.W.3) chose to file this writ of certiorari to quash the impugned award of the Lok Adalat contending that the petitioner being one of the victims and unless all the victims seek to compound the offence, the criminal case cannot be compounded at the instance of the defacto-complainant under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C.
6. Under Section 320 Cr.P.C. the offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the table may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of the said table. Insofar as the offences under Sections 406, 417 and 420 IPC are concerned; the owner of the property in respect of which the breach of trust has been committed is entitled to compound the offence under Section 406 IPC and the person cheated is entitled to compound the offences under Sections 417^420^ In the instant case, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner being one of the owners of the property in respect of which breach of trust has been committed by the accused as well as she being the person cheated, unless she consents for compounding the offence, the said offence cannot be compounded. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gubbala Nageswara Rao v. State 1998 (2) ALT (Crl.) 14 wherein it was held that the offence under Section 500 can be compounded only by the persons, who are defamed, which includes L.Ws.2 to 6 in that case apart from the complainant. In that case L.W.1 alone consented to compound the offence. This Court held that the offence can be compounded at the instance of one of the defamed persons but it cannot have the effect of acquitting the accused on the ground of such compromise in view of the fact that L.Ws.2 to 6 have not compounded the offence. Accordingly, the conclusion of the lower Court that the case cannot be compounded unless all other defamed persons - L.Ws.2 to 6 compound the offence was rejected. The other case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is the judgment of the Patna High Court in Ramanaya v. State of Bihar : 1977 Cri.L.J. 467 where the accused was charged with the offence under Section 337 IPC alleging that due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, two persons X and Y were injured and only X joined the accused in a compromise petition but not Y. Therefore, it was held that since X and Y both were injured, unless Y joined with the accused in the compromise petition, the offence could not be compounded.
8. We have considered the aforesaid contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the aforesaid two cases, the offences arose under the same Act and therefore, the cause of action was one in respect of the victims therein whereas in the instant case, every chit is separate and distinct and the cause of action would arise separately in respect of each depositor. The petitioner herein is similarly cheated as that of the defacto-complainant - L.W.1. The criminal case was registered at the instance of L.W.1 alone she being the defacto-complainant and merely because the petitioner and others are cited as witnesses, in respect of the offence committed by the accused, with regard to the allegations made by L.W.1 it cannot be said that the accused has cheated the petitioner and L.W.1 by one common cause of action/one act. If the accused has cheated 21 similarly situated persons like L.W.1, the said 21 persons are also entitled to file separate complaints and if the accused are found guilty, each offence has to be compounded separately. Therefore, we are of the opinion that merely because the petitioner has not joined with the defacto-complainant - L.W.1 in a compromise petition to compound the alleged offence, it cannot be said that the defacto-complainant is not entitled to compound the offence insofar as L.W.1 alone is concerned. We are also of the opinion that merely because L.W.1 compounded the alleged offence, it cannot be said that the alleged offence committed by the accused in respect of the petitioner and others is wiped out or amounts to compounding the alleged offence.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed keeping it open to the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedy. There shall be no order as to costs.