Allowed

Mohd. Abdul Gafoor v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC25 Feb 2013CRLP/1480/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed to quash an FIR in a Quasi-matrimonial consent decree case where parties had settled. The court observed that keeping the FIR pending would cause undue hardship, as the complainant had no objection. The court quashed the first information report to meet the ends of justice and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Cr.No.382 of 2011 was quashed and the criminal petition allowed.

Mohd. Abdul Gafoor Vs The State of A.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1480 of 2013

¶3

Dated: 25.02.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mohd. Abdul Gafoor and four others

¶6

…..Petitioners/Accused

¶7

And

¶8

The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1480 of 2013

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the First Information Report in Cr.No.382 of 2011 of Women P.S., Charminar (South Zone), Hyderabad.

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State.

¶15

Basing on the report lodged by the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant, a case in Cr.No.382 of 2011 was registered by the Women P.S., Charminar (South Zone), Hyderabad on the allegation that the petitioners/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Subsequently, the parties entered into compromise and filed memorandum of compromise-cum-declaration entered between the 1^st

¶16

petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, which is reduced into writing, the Xerox copy of which is placed as part of the record.

¶17

The 2^nd respondent and the petitioners/accused who are present in the Court stated that they amicably settled the matter and the

¶18

2^nd respondent/de facto complainant has no objection if the First Information Report is quashed.

¶19

Taking into account the nature of the offence and keeping in view of the fact that the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant amicably settled the matter with the petitioners/accused, this Court is of the view that keeping the First Information Report pending investigation before the concerned police would cause undue hardship and inconvenience to the parties. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash the First Information Report.

¶20

For the aforesaid reasons, the First Information Report in Cr.No.382 of 2011 of Women P.S., Charminar (South Zone), Hyderabad, is hereby quashed.

¶21

The Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly.

¶22

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶23

___________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J

¶24

25^th February 2013

¶25

mar/SMR

Mohd. Abdul Gafoor v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Abdul Gafoor 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

R. Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Gopal Puttikar Jhonny, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Thirupathi Reddy Vs The State rep. by its P.P.

Mohd Ahmed Ali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Challa Venkata Rami Reddy , Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shapur Karthik, Vs K.Savitha Reddy