Allowed

Pathan Baji, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC31 Mar 2011CRLRC/339/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision, the court recorded a joint petition showing compromise between the accused and complainant, who are nearest relatives. Allowing compoundability of the Section 411 IPC offence, the court set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgments, conviction and sentence are set aside; the petitioner (accused) is acquitted of the offence under Section 411 IPC.

Pathan Baji, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.339 OF 2005

¶3

AND

¶4

CRIMINAL M.P. No.1211 OF 2011

¶5

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.339 OF 2005

¶7

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶8

The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the sole accused, Pathan Baji, assailing the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2002 dated 22-02-2005 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnuru vide judgment in C.C. No.52 of 2000 dated 19-04-2002 for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

¶9

2. However, now both the parties have come forward jointly and filed the compromise petition in Criminal M.P. No.1211 of 2011 signed by both the parties as well as their counsel stating that due to mediation by the elders of either side, the matter is compromised between the parties out of Court as they are nearest relatives and residents of the same village, as such, the compromise entered by them may be recorded by this Court and the impugned judgments as well as conviction

¶10

and sentence imposed on the accused by the Courts below may be set aside.

¶11

3. The de facto complainant Shaik Hussain Alisha and the accused Pathan Baji as well as their counsel are present in the Court and both the parties are identified by their respective counsel.

¶12

4. On being questioned by this Court, both the parties have admitted that with the intervention of their elders, they have compromised the matter between them out of Court and the de facto complainant has reported that he compromised the matter with the accused as he is his nearest relative and resident of the same village, as such, he may be permitted to compound the offence under Section 411 IPC with the accused and the accused may be acquitted of the same.

¶13

5. In the circumstances, the compromise entered into between the parties is taken on record and the petition in Criminal M.P. No.1211 of 2011 is allowed permitting the de facto complainant to compound the offence against the accused.

¶14

6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned judgments and conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Courts below for the offence under Section 411 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

¶15

March 31, 2011. PV

¶16

__________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J

Pathan Baji, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathan Baji, 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

Marella Sreerama Murthy Vs The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

Chakriya , Chakriyappa , Ravi Vs The State of a.P.Rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Syed Ali Yawar Jaffery, Vs Smt. Syeda Amtul Sakina Abedi

G. Shankar Vs S. Srinivas

G. Shankar, Vs K. Srinivas

G. Shankar Vs M. Dhan Raj