Allowed

P.Chandra, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Dec 2014CRLRC/1199/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition where the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding a property dispute. Consequently, the conviction and sentence confirmed against the petitioners under IPC Sections 447 and 427 were set aside, granting them acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioners acquitted; bail bonds cancelled; compromise memo made part of record.

P.Chandra, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

CRL.R.C.M.P.No.4174 of 2014 &

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1199 of 2007

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

Challenging the judgment dated 30.08.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2005 of the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, the petitioners herein had preferred the present revision. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioners and had confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 427 of the IPC, vide judgment dated 15.04.2005 passed in C.C.No.1157 of 2000 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

¶6

When this revision case is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the matter is settled out of court between the petitioners and the tenant in occupation of the property of the petitioners at whose instance, the complaint was filed by Dr. Gopikrishna, a neighbour and that a petition in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.4174 of 2014 has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision by recording the compromise. The petitioners had also filed a miscellaneous petition to implead the tenant of their property as a party-2^nd respondent to this case to facilitate the actual parties to the lis to enter into the compromise before this Court. The said petition in Crl.M.P.No.4173 of 2014 is ordered by a separate order passed today.

¶7

Both the parties present in the court had asserted the terms and conditions of the compromise, which have been reduced into writing in the form of a joint memo, which is signed by both the parties, and which is filed along with the petition for recording the compromise. In proof of identity of Smt. A.Swarnalatha Devi, the 2^nd respondent, her household card, which contains her photograph and her passport bearing No.J 1228402 are

¶8

produced for perusal of the Court.

¶9

In view of the relationship of tenant and landlords between Smt.A.Swarnalatha Devi, the 2^nd respondent herein, and the petitioners and in view of the settlement arrived at between them, the Crl.R.C.M.P.No.4174 of 2014 is ordered.

¶10

A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the joint memo of compromise would go to show that at the intervention of the elders, Smt. A.Swarnalatha Devi/the 2^nd respondent had compromised the matter with the petitioners and that therefore, the present request that the criminal revision case against the petitioners be allowed is being made by both the parties. In view of the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties the parties are permitted to enter into a compromise by invoking the enabling provisions of the Code.

¶11

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequent thereto, the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners in C.C.No.1157 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, as confirmed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tirupati in Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2005 are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of the IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. It is directed that the joint memo of compromise shall form part of the record.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this revision shall stand closed.

¶13

_______________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶14

16^th December 2014 RAR

P.Chandra, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Chandra, 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

Morthala Ramkoti Reddy, (Since dead) by LRs Vs Bogala Krishna Reddy

Siddiramulu Revuri, Vs The State of A.P.

Gudise Anjappa, Vs The Sho., Ps., Makthal

S.Srinivas Reddy, Vs a.Swaroopa Rani

G.Hanumanth , Hanumanth Rao Vs The State.,Sho.

Muthyala Ramalinga Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh