Allowed

Vakiti Janardhan Reddy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Jul 2015CRLP/11040/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P Act. Despite noting non-compoundability under Section 320 Cr.P.C, the court permitted compounding in the interest of justice following a settlement.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to compound offences; Criminal Petition allowed; Proceedings of C.C. No.838 of 2013 quashed; Bail bonds cancelled.

Vakiti Janardhan Reddy Vs State of Telangana — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

¶4

Crl.P.M.P No.7157 of 2015

¶5

IN/ AND

¶6

Crl.P. No.11040 of 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vakiti Janardhan Reddy

¶9

…Petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 4

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 27-07-2015

¶14

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶15

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶16

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

¶17

may be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶18

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

¶19

3. Whether Their Lordship wish to

¶20

see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

¶21

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶22

Crl.P.M.P.No.7157 of 2015

¶23

IN/ AND

¶24

Crl.P. No.11040 of 2014

¶25

COMMON ORDER :

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings of C.C. No.838 of 2013 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B Nagar, Cyberabad, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P Act against petitioners herein, outcome of Crime No.348 of 2012 of Uppal Police Station, from the report of 2^nd respondent—de facto complainant.

¶27

2) Pending disposal of the Criminal Petition, the 2^nd respondent —de facto complainant and petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 4 are present and filed a joint memo in Crl.P.M.P. No.7157 of 2015 stating that they settled the matter at the intervention of elders and for the well-being of de facto complainant, hence sought permission to compound the offences.

¶28

3) Having regard to the above, though the offences under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act are not compoundable under Section 320

¶29

Cr.P.C, to sub-serve the ends of justice by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C, it is appropriate to grant permission to compound. Accordingly, the Crl.P.M.P. No.7157 of 2015 is ordered and permission is accorded and the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P Act, are compounded.

¶30

4) Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and all the proceedings relating to C.C. No.838 of 2013 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B Nagar, Cyberabad, are quashed. The bail bonds of the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 4, if any, shall stand cancelled.

¶31

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

¶32

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

¶33

27.07.2015

¶34

knl

¶35

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶36

Crl.P.M.P No.7157 of 2015

¶37

IN/ AND

¶38

Crl.P. No.11040 of 2014

¶39

knl

¶40

Date:27.07.2015

Vakiti Janardhan Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakiti Janardhan Reddy v. State of Telangana

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

Addanki Venkata Srinivaso. Rao , Sena Srinu , john Wesly Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Laxmi Rajam S/o.Bugulaiah Vs The State of Telangana

C. Thirumala Naidu, Vs The State of Telangana.

Smt. Y.Shyamala Vs State of Telengana rep., Pp

Darlanka v.N.S.Prasad, S/o. Murali Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Kokkanti Padma Vs M/s. Keerthi Constructions