Allowed

Dharma Reddy Raghunandana Reddy v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC8 Mar 2011CRLRC/121/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging the denial of permission to withdraw a prosecution for offences under Sections 408 and 420 IPC. The Court exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to permit withdrawal due to compromise, complainant's lack of interest, and a Government Order, despite one offence being non-compoundable.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the case against the petitioners-accused is accorded, and the Cr.M.P. is allowed.

Dharma Reddy Raghunandana Reddy Vs The State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.121 of 2011

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

This revision is directed against the order dated 12.1.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.928 of 2010 in CC No.46 of 2007 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam.

¶4

The petitioners herein are the accused in the above C.C., for the offence punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of IPC. It appears that there was a compromise entered into between the defactocomplainant and the accused persons, and further, the Government also issued a G.O.Rt.No.1002 Law (LA & J Home Courts) Department, dated 24.6.2009 to take steps to withdraw the case against the petitioners-accused.

¶5

In the light of the said compromise entered into between the parties and in the light of the said G.O., the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.928 of 2010 under Section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the case against the petitionersaccused. The learned Magistrate having considered the submissions and relying on some of the judgments of this Court, refused to grant permission to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Regidi Amadalavalasa P.S., to withdraw the case against the petitioners by the order impugned herein. The same is questioned in this revision.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The offences alleged against the petitioners are 408 and 420 IPC. The offence falling under Section 420 IPC is compoundable, but the offence punishable under Section 408 is not compoundable.

¶8

It is true as held by this Court that the application to withdraw the prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. cannot be filed in a routine and mechanical manner. But from a perusal of the petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor on 10.3.2010, this Court is of the view that

¶9

the Assistant Public Prosecutor has applied his mind. The petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor before the Court below reads as under:

¶10

“It is submitted that the above case under Sections 408 and 420 IPC against the three accused is pending before this Court since 2007. The accused are employees of G.M.R. Industries Limited, Sankili by the date of offence and they are no longer in their service since now.

¶11

It is further submitted that all the three accused realised their omissions and commissions during their period of service and approached their former employee and implored the management to withdraw the case against them on humanitarian grounds. The management also positively responded and with a humanitarian view approached the Government of A.P., with a request to withdraw the case against the accused vide its letter dated 5.11.2008. The Government of A.P., on its part corresponded with the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam and also obtained my opinion regarding withdrawal of the case. The case under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court, whereas Section 408 IPC is non-compoundable.

¶12

It is further submitted that all the key witnesses in this case belong to G.M.R. Industries and they are continuing in their service at present. Under these circumstances, it cannot be expected that they will speak against the accused in view of the stand taken by their employer G.M.R. Industries to forgive and forget about the lapses by the accused.

¶13

The Hon’ble Government of A.P., have issued G.O.Rt.No.1002 Law (LA & J House Courts) Department dated 24.6.2009 for taking steps for withdrawal of the case under Section 321 Cr.P.C.”

¶14

It is not merely on the ground that the Government has issued an order for taking steps for withdrawal of the case against the petitioners. But the Assistant Public Prosecutor had applied his mind in filing the said petition. No doubt, the said offence punishable under section 408 IPC is not compoundable, but having regard to the fact that the complainant had come forward stating that he is no more interested

¶15

to get the matter prosecuted, and in view of the settlement between the parties, though it is not compoundable, this Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and permit the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the said prosecution.

¶16

In view of the above discussion, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.928 of 2010 in CC No.46 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, is allowed and permission to withdraw the case against the petitioners-accused is accorded.

¶17

_____________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 8^th March 2011 Note: Cc in one week. B/O Nn

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.121 of 2011

¶20

8.3.2011

Dharma Reddy Raghunandana Reddy v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharma Reddy Raghunandana Reddy v. The State of A.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

K.Pawan Kalyan, Vs D.Kiran Kumar

Doddapaneni Koteswari Vs Mannava Prabhu Das

Shaik Mohammad Jafer Vs Shaik Jasmin

M/s Prestec Laboratories Ltd., Vs Y.Kondala Rao

Smt. Thummalapalli Bramarambha Vs The State

Y.S.S.Ra.a Sharma Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd. and Another