Dismissed

Md. Ameeruddin, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC30 Dec 2011CRLP/2019/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC (implied context of quashing) to quash C.C. No. 150 of 2008. The case was prosecuted for Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Information from the Additional Public Prosecutor revealed the offense was compromised in Lok Adalat. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed as infructuous.

Md. Ameeruddin, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

Crl.P. No. 2019 of 2010

¶3

DATED: 30.12.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Md. Ameeruddin	.. Petitioner/ A5
And
1. The State of A.P.
2. Syed Mahmood Hussain	..
Respondents

¶6

O R D E R:-

¶7

This Criminal Petition is filed by A5 for quashing the case in

¶8

C.C. No. 150 of 2008 on the file of the Court of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶9

2. A perusal of the copy of the charge sheet would show that the police have prosecuted the case therein only for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC.

¶10

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor however, based on a letter dated 26.12.2011 sent by the Inspector of Police, Shalibanda Police Station, Hyderabad City, has reported that the above case has been compromised before the Lok Adalat on 05.08.2010. It may be noted that the offence occurred in the year 2004 i.e. much prior to the amendment by which Section 324 IPC has been made noncompoundable offence and perhaps the compromise was effected because of the reason that the offence then was compoundable. The petitioner’s counsel is absent but in view of the above information

¶11

furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it follows that

¶12

nothing remains in this petition for adjudication.

¶13

4. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶14

__________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶15

30.12.2011 bcj

Md. Ameeruddin, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Ameeruddin, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitluri Thimoti, Vs The Inspector of Police

Gudipalli Siddartha reddy Vs State-C.B.I.

P.Srivalli, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Parripati Umapathi Kumar Vs The State

M/s. Balaji Medical Agencies Vs The State

M/s Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd., (Arcil) Vs M/s Jaya Lakshmi Spinning Mills Ltd.