Allowed

J. Narayana Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jul 2022CRLP/4217/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order allows compromise petitions (I.A.Nos.3 and 4) filed under Cr.P.C. for a pending criminal case involving grievous hurt by electric shock. The court deems it appropriate to allow the petition as no offence could be made out against Accused No.3 and records the compromise, subsequently quashing proceedings against him specifically.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C.No.200 of 2016 are quashed against Accused No.3 only; compromise is recorded and permitted.

J. Narayana Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶2

I.A.Nos.3 and 4 IN/AND

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITIO NO.4217 OF 2022

¶4

Between :- J.Narayana Reddy … Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶5

And

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. … 1^st Respondent 2) Jwala Narasimha Reddy … 2^nd Respondent/de facto

¶7

… 2^nd Respondent/de facto

¶8

complainant

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Kale Vijaya Raju Counsel for the 1^st Respondent : The Public Prosecutor Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent : Mr.K.Satyanandam COMMON ORDER :

¶10

I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2022

¶11

These applications are filed under Sections 320(6) & 482 and 320(2) & 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) respectively, seeking permission to record Compromise, Compound the offence and to quash the Proceedings in S.C.No.200 of 2016 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri, Anantapur District.

¶12

The 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 in Cr.No.132 of 2012 before the Station House Officer, Mudigubba Police Station, Anantapur District, for the offence punishable under Section 308 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and the said case is registered as S.C.No.200 of 2016 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri, Anantapur District and the same is pending before the learned Trial Court.

¶13

¶14

NJS, J Crlp_4217 of 2022

¶15

The petitioner/Accused No.3 and the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant are present, they are identified by the Station House Officer, Mudigubba, Police Station, Anantapur District, and their respective counsels.

¶16

A joint Memo of Compromise is filed by both the parties, when the terms of Joint Memo of Compromise are explained in Telugu language they are admitted to be true and correct. It is submitted that the petitioner/Accused No.3 and the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant voluntarily entered into compromise, settled the matter outside the Court, due to intervention of elders and well-wishers and that there are no disputes between both the parties.

¶17

A reading of the Charge Sheet would go to show that A.1 to A.3, who are possessing lands adjacent to the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant’s lands, in order to protect their crops from attack of wild pigs, have arranged electrical wires and the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant while proceeding through the lands of A.1 to A.3 came in touch with the live electrical wires he received severe burns and as a result of the same, his leg was amputated.

¶18

However, in the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant or in his deposition, no allegations, much less, specific overt acts have been made against A.3, with whom the compromise was entered into by the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant, nor was there any material to substantiate the prosecution case against the petitioner/Accused No.3.

¶19

¶20

NJS, J Crlp_4217 of 2022

¶21

Under the above mentioned circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the Compromise Petition, as no offence can be made out under Section 308 of IPC against A.3 and the permission is granted to compound the offences. Accordingly, compromise is recorded in terms of the Joint Memo filed along with I.A.No.4 of 2022 and the applications are ordered.

¶22

Crl.P.No.4217 of 2022

¶23

In view of the orders passed by this Court in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2022, this Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the Proceedings in S.C.No.200 of 2016 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadiri, Anantapur District against A.3 only.

¶24

Registry is directed to annex a copy of Joint Compromise Memo to this order.

¶25

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶26

__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

Date: 04.07.2022

NJS, J Crlp_4217 of 2022

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶32

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4217 of 2021

¶33

Date: 04.07.2022

¶34

J. Narayana Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Narayana Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

C Yashoda Vs U Sudheera

Sarvepalli Venkata Radha Krishna Vs Rudravaram Ananda Swaroop

Viswanadhapalli Ravi Chandra Kala, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Avula Mallikarjuna Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Anupallavi Bhuvaneswari Vs Sri S.Suresh Kumar

S Rajesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh