Allowed

K. Ramana Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Mar 2015CRLP/1044/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed two criminal petitions seeking quashment of proceedings in a private complaint case. It held that since the dispute involved a monetary transaction amicably settled by the parties, driving them to trial served no useful purpose, relying on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.603 of 2013 are quashed; parties are permitted to compound the offence; pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.

K. Ramana Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Crl.P.M.P.No.2123 of 2015 in Crl.P.No.1044 of 2014

¶2

and

¶3

Criminal Petition No.1044 of 2014

¶4

COMMON ORDER:

¶5

T h e defacto complainant and his Counsel Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy are present. A.1 to A.3 and their Counsel Sri M.Viswanadham are present.

¶6

Heard both sides and perused the petition.

¶7

A private complaint was filed by the complainant with the allegations that A.1 to A.3 who are partners took an amount of Rs.4,75,000/- as loan from the complainant for their business purpose and for the said amount they issued a cheque bearing No.292266 dated 18.07.2013 drawn on ICICI Bank, Himayathnagar Branch, Hyderabad but the same was returned with endorsement “funds insufficient” and later when the complainant asked for repayment, the accused avoided payment of the said amount and on 02.09.2013 at about 16:00 hours, when the complainant went to the residence of A.1 at Yousufguda, Rahmath Nagar for asking his amount, then all the accused attacked him with hands. Learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad took cognizance of the case and registered as C.C.No.603 of 2013.

¶8

While-so, now the parties and their learned Counsel present before this Court today and submitted that at the intervention of elders, they have amicably settled all their disputes and they are now willing to live peacefully and that the complainant has no objection for quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.603 of 2013 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad and hence, permission may be accorded to them to compound the offence and proceedings may be quashed in the interest of justice.

¶9

Having regard to the above said submission and in view of the fact that the dispute relates to a monetary transaction which the parties have amicably resolved and no useful purpose will be served even if the parties are driven to trial since they have compromised and by following the decision reported in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, this petition is allowed and permission is accorded to the parties to compound the offence and consequently proceedings in C.C.No.603 of 2013 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.

¶10

In the result, both the petitions are accordingly allowed.

¶11

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶13

Date: 18.03.2015 scs

K. Ramana Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ramana Murthy, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Imtiaz Ui Hassan, Vs The State of A.P.

B.Venkata Ramana Raju Vs State of Telangana

Yanam Udaya Rani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.A. Manjur Althaf , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tarakeshwara chary Vs K.sunitha

Kesineni Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of A.P