Allowed

Mr. T. P. Chakrapani v. the State of A.P Rep. by Its P.P

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Feb 2020CRLP/11281/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed applications seeking to compound offences and record a compromise arising from an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was disposed of by quashing the registered F.I.R.

What did the court decide?

Applications to compound offences and record compromise allowed; criminal petition disposed of by quashing F.I.R. No. 306 of 2017.

Mr. T. P. Chakrapani Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶2

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2019

¶3

in/and

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11281 of 2017

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

The Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.306 of 2017, dated 17.06.2017 of VSP III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 120b read with 34 I.P.C.

¶7

The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the Criminal Petition. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, both parties have settled the matter out of the Court at the intervention of elders, and hence respondent No.2/defacto complainant has moved an application I.A.No.1 of 2019 to permit respondent No.2 company to compound the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C. in F.I.R.No.306 of 2017 on the file of Visakhapatnam III Town Police Station and quash the proceedings therein. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant also moved another application in I.A.No.2 of 2019 requesting the Court to record the compromise. 4. The petitioner/accused No.4 and respondent No.2/defacto complainant have appeared before this Court. They are identified by their respective counsel. The parties have also filed the Xerox copies of their Aadar cards, which are compared with their originals.

¶8

In view of the settlement of the dispute between the parties out of the Court, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2019 are allowed. Consequently, the criminal petition is disposed of, quashing F.I.R.No.306 of 2017, dated 17.06.2017 on the file of VSP III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 120-B read with 34 I.P.C., against the petitioner/accused No.4.

¶9

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶10

__________________________ JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶11

17^th February, 2020 IKN

¶12

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11281 of 2017

¶14

17.02.2020

¶15

IKN

Mr. T. P. Chakrapani v. the State of A.P Rep. by Its P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. T. P. Chakrapani v. the State of A.P Rep. by Its P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kade Lakshmi Narayana Goud Vs State of Ap

Muthireddy Yaswanth Naga Sai Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nimmala Srinivasulu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Raul Serrano Vs the State of Ap Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Luis Alponso Zapico Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by Pp and Another

Felguera Gruas India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Ap Rep., by Its Pp and Another