Allowed

B.v.S.S.B.K.Ranjit, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Feb 2013CRLP/1419/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings registered against the petitioner for attempted outrage of modesty and related offences. Allowing the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Court held that a compromise was reached and continuing the trial was unnecessary, likely to result in a conviction despite the non-compoundable nature of the marital assault charge.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings in P.R.C.No.127 of 2012 are quashed.

B.v.S.S.B.K.Ranjit, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1419 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in P.R.C.No.127 of 2012 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶4

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶5

The petitioner – sole accused and the second respondent-de facto complainant are present.

¶6

The brief facts of the case as they would appear from the contents of the charge sheet are that the second respondent is a married woman who has some differences with her husband. The petitioner, who is the resident of the same village, on the request of the second respondent assured her that he would help her in obtaining divorce from her husband through the Court.

¶7

While so, on 05.09.2012 it was alleged that while the second respondent was alone at her house, the petitioner entered into the house and tried to outrage her modesty. It is on the aforesaid allegations, the second respondent lodged a report with the police, basing on which the police registered a case in Crime No.329 of 2012 under Sections 448, 354, 506 and 379 IPC and also filed a charge sheet against the accused and now the said case is pending as P.R.C.No.127 of 2012 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 448, 354, 506 and 379 IPC. Out of the said offences, one under Section 354 IPC is non-compoundable.

¶9

The petitioner filed an affidavit into the Court stating that the petitioner and his family members are well known to her since her childhood, she approached him in the month of June 2011 seeking his assistance to obtain divorce. She further stated in the affidavit that her relatives, friends and well-wishers advised both of them to settle the matter amicably and accordingly, she gave this

¶10

affidavit out of free will without there being any force or coercion from any source withdrawing the allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner made a request in the affidavit that she has been working as secondary grade teacher and as the matter was settled out of the Court, no further action is required to be taken against the accused and she has no objection to quash the criminal case.

¶11

Considering the nature of the offences and the circumstances under which the parties entered into compromise, I am of the view that continuing this case any longer making the parties to face the trial would only result in undue hardship and inconvenience to the parties and there is no possibility for the case ending in conviction. To meet the requirements of justice, I am therefore of the view that the criminal case can be quashed.

¶12

For the foregoing reasons, the entire proceedings in P.R.C.No.127 of 2012 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, are quashed.

¶13

The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶14

_________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J.

¶15

21-02-2013 Rns

B.v.S.S.B.K.Ranjit, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.v.S.S.B.K.Ranjit, 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

Hajra Farhath , Hajra, Vs Tariq Fareed Khan

M.a.Faheem Vs The State, through Shops Nizamabad, Rural

Banoth Balu Vs The State of Ap.

P.Naveen Kumar Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

P.Noorjahan and 4 Others Vs the State of A.P. Rep by Pp. and Another

P.Sameer Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh