The High Court quashed criminal proceedings involving offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC after parties amicably resolved their disputes regarding a mortgage agreement. The Court deemed further trial unnecessary as the root cause was settled.
Proceedings in C.C.No.631 of 2014 are quashed; petitions allowed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Crl.P.M.P.No.14008 of 2014 in Crl.P.No.13357 of 2014 and Criminal Petition No.13357 of 2014
COMMON ORDER:
The de-facto complainant and her counsel Sri M.Arvind are present. Accused Nos.2 and 3 and their counsel Sri C.Vikram Chandra are present.
On the report given by defacto complainant, the police of Santoshnagar PS registered Cr.No.293 of 2013 and after investigation laid charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC and learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the same and registered as C.C.No.631 of 2014.
The allegations are that defacto complainant’s family residing in the first floor as mortgagees and the accused who are mortgagors are residing in ground floor in the building in Santoshnagar Colony and there are some disputes between them. While so, on 21.11.2013 at about 3 P.M. when the defacto complainant went to ground floor to switch on the motor pump, on seeing her both A1 and A2 stopped her and abused in filthy language and when she questioned they caught hold of her plait and assaulted her and beat on her left cheek and A3 also came there and threatened her with dire consequences and later A2 and A3 sped away.
Both the parties and their counsel present in the Court today and submitted that at the intervention of elders they have
amicably resolved their disputes and also the criminal cases filed against each other and they want to lead harmonious and peaceful life and in view of this peaceful settlement, defacto complainant has no objection for quashment of the proceedings and therefore they may be permitted to compound the offence and quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.
Having regard to the above submission and in view of the fact that root cause of the dispute is due to differences in the mortgage affairs which the parties have amicably resolved and no useful purpose will be served if the parties are directed to undergo trial, and following the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303) permission is accorded to the parties to compound the offence and proceedings in C.C.No.631 of 2014 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed in terms of joint memo filed by the parties.
In the result, both the petitions are accordingly allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
Date: 10.03.2015 Murthy
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings in a criminal case for offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC can be quashed upon amicable settlement between parties.
Whether quashing of criminal proceedings is in the interest of justice given the parties have resolved their disputes regarding mortgage affairs.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherFollowed¶9
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Defacto complainant
Accused Nos. 2 and 3
U. Durga Prasad Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
