Allowed

Mr.M.v.Srinivas Rao,S/o,Madhava Rao, v. The Inspector of Police

Telangana HC29 Apr 2015CRLP/3642/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Despite the offences being non-compoundable, the court permitted the recording of a compromise between the petitioner and the complainant and quashed the proceedings due to the settlement and lack of societal impact.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.3914 of 2015 and Criminal Petition No.3642 of 2015 allowed with direction to quash proceedings in Crime No.218 of 2015.

Mr.M.v.Srinivas Rao,S/o,Madhava Rao, Vs The Inspector of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

CRL. PETITION MISC. PETITION No.3914 OF

¶3

2015 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.3642 OF 2015 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.3642 OF 2015

¶4

COMMON ORDER:

¶5

The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) by the petitioner – accused requesting to quash the proceedings in Crime No.218 of 2015 of Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad registered against him for the offences punishable under Section 363 read with 511, 497, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and are pending before the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶6

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner herein is accused and the 2^nd respondent herein is de facto complainant, on whose report, the Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad registered Crime No.218 of 2015 against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 363 read with 511, 506 and 497 IPC. The petitioner herein filed the instant petition to quash the said proceedings.

¶7

3. At this stage, the petitioner and the de facto complainant have come forward requesting the Court to record compromise and to quash the proceedings in the said crime on the ground that at the intervention of elders, they have arrived at the

¶8

compromise/settlement and, accordingly, they have filed Criminal M.P. No.3914 of 2015 under Section 320 (1) read with 482 of the Code, seeking permission of the Court to enter into compromise for the said offences, besides filing the affidavit of the 2^nd respondent – V. Madana Gopal, and a joint memo on behalf of both parties, for recording compromise and to quash the proceedings in Crime No.218 of 2015 of Alwal Police Station for the aforesaid offences.

¶9

4. The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent are present, and so also their respective counsel. T h e d e facto complainant affirmed the contents mentioned in the joint memo and so also the petitioner herein, who is accused in the said crime.

¶10

5. Since the issue involved between the petitioner herein and the 2^nd respondent will not have any impact on the society, and the same would enable them to live amicably as both belong to one and the same Department in which they have been working, though, the offence punishable under Section 363 read with 511 IPC is non-compoundable, still, in view of the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court i n Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another^[1] and Manohar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another^[2] , permission is accorded recording the compromise by ordering Crl.M.P. No.3914 of 2015 and, consequently, Criminal Petition No.3642 of 2015 is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.218 of 2015 of Alwal Police Station, Cyberabad registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 363 read with 511, 497, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) in view of the joint memo

¶11

filed by the parties.

¶12

6. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition, stand disposed of.

¶13

_____________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J April 29, 2015. Mgr

¶14

[1] (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶15

[2] 2014 LawSuit (SC) 564

Mr.M.v.Srinivas Rao,S/o,Madhava Rao, v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.M.v.Srinivas Rao,S/o,Madhava Rao, v. The Inspector of Police

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri J.Sai Raj Vs The State of Telangana

K.v.L.Annapurna, D/o.K.Muthyala Rao, Vs State of Telangana

Ganapathi Sridhar, Vs The State of A.P.

Smt Choragudi Indiramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rajesh Agarwal, Vs The State of Telangana

S. Bhaskar Reddy , Basava Reddy Vs The State of Telangana Through the Public Procesutor