2. On the complaint dated 12.09.2012 lodged by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Ranga Reddy District, on behalf of the respondent No.2/alleged victim alleging that on 11.9.2012 one K.Surender Reddy manhandled the respondent No.2 working in the office of the R.T.O., Ibrahmapatnam, the L.B.Nagar L & O Police, Cyberabad registered the Crime No.1308 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 353, 323 and 290 of I.P.C. against the petitioner herein. In fact, the name of the petitioner is not Surender Reddy, but it i s K.Sudhakar Reddy. However, the petitioner never assaulted respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, realizing his mistake, submitted an affidavit on 08.10.2012 to the effect that on his physical verification, the petitioner is not the accused, and the complainant also informed the Station House Officer, L.B.Nagar Police Station vide his letter No.5762/A1/2012 dated 11.10.2012, that the petitioner is not the accused person. However the police are still continuing the F.I.R. treating the petitioner as an accused and causing much embarrassment to the petitioner and the members of his family. In fact the respondent No.2/victim filed an affidavit and a joint memo of compromise expressing his unconditional willingness for quashing the above crime. In view of this compromise and in the light of the latest guidelines of the Supreme Court for quashing F.I.Rs./Charge sheets on the victims entering into compromise, as laid down in the very recent larger bench decision of the Supreme Court of India in Giansing Vs. State of Punjab and anothe r[1] at para-61, the instant case deserves to be quashed as it is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, prays to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.1308 of 2012 of
