Allowed

Dadi Uma Maheswari Devi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Jul 2022CRLP/819/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench permitted the recording of a joint compromise and ordered the compounding of offences under Sections 320(8) and 482 Cr.P.C. in a case involving the SC/ST Act due to a voluntary settlement between the petitioners and the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to compound the offence; joint compromise memo recorded; Criminal Petition No.819 of 2020 allowed.

Dadi Uma Maheswari Devi, Vs The State of Andhra… — Caste Atrocities | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATHI

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.819 OF 2020

¶4

Between:

¶5

Dadi Uma Maheswari Devi and another

¶6

… Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Represented by its Public Prosecutor and another.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioners : Mr.E.V.S.S.Ravi Kumar

¶11

Counsel for 1^st respondent : The Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶12

Counsel for 2^nd respondent : Mr.N.Harinadh

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

I.A.No.1 and 2 of 2022

¶15

These miscellaneous petitions are filed under Section 320(8) and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking permission to record compromise and compound the offences to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.No.112 of 2019 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SC & ST POA Act-cum-XI Additional District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam.

¶16

The 2^nd respondent / de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.385 of 2019 on the file of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities (POA) Act, 2015. After

¶17

¶18

completion of the investigation, the Police laid the charge sheet and the said calendar case is now pending before the trial Court.

¶19

The petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 and the 2^nd respondent/ de facto complainant are present and they are identified by their respective counsels and produced Photostat copies of Aadhar cards to prove their identity.

¶20

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 petitioners and the 2^nd respondent 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.

¶21

Therefore, I find that the compromise is voluntary in the interest of both parties and permission is granted to compound the offence. Hence, compromise is recorded in terms of the joint memo filed along with the petition. Accordingly, the petitions are ordered. Crl.P.No.819 of 2020

¶22

In view of the orders passed by this Court in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶23

Registry is directed to annex a copy of joint compromise memo to this order. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

July 25, 2022. NPA

328

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶29

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.819 OF

¶30

2020

¶31

Dt: 25.07.2022

¶32

NPA

Dadi Uma Maheswari Devi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dadi Uma Maheswari Devi, 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

Janjanam Lakshmi Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Janjanam Lakshmi Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondeti Rama Lakshmi Vs State of Ap

Gedela Prasad Vs Smt. G.Uma Parameshwari

Indian Immunologicals Limited Vs the Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation

Mudunuri Santhosh kumar Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh