Allowed

Laveti Kishore v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Nov 2016CRLP/16223/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following a compromise reached between the petitioner and complainant. The court held that since the offence lacked societal impact and the settlement was mutual, it was a fit case for compounding.

What did the court decide?

Permission is accorded to compound the offence and quash the criminal proceedings.

Laveti Kishore Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Crl.P.M.P.NO.18370 of 2016 IN/AND Crl.P.No.16223 of 2016

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

Crl.M.P.No.18370 of 2016 :

¶4

This petition is filed under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking permission to record compromise and quash the C.C.No.827 of 2015 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 345 (D) (i) I.P.C.

¶5

The petitioner and defacto complainant are present and they are identified by their respective counsels.

¶6

On enquiry the parties stated that they settled the issue outside the Court due to intervention of elders and well-wishers and they wanted to lead peaceful life. It is also stated that the defacto complainant married another person.

¶7

In “ Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr .¹ ” the Apex Court held that depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however before exercising such power, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of crime and its social impact. It is further held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., could not be fittingly quashed even though victim or victim’s family and offender have settled dispute. Such offences were not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly any

¶8

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶9

MSM,J Crl.P_16223_2016

¶10

¶11

compromise between victim and offender in relation to offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; could not provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.

¶12

By applying the principle laid down in the above judgment, since the settlement is in the interest of both petitioner and the defacto complainant and the said settlement has no societal impact; I find that it is a fit case to permit the petitioner to compound the offences.

¶13

Accordingly, permission is accorded as sought for.

¶14

Crl.P.No.16223 of 2016 :

¶15

In view of the order passed in Crl.P.M.P.No.18370 of 2016,

¶16

this petition is allowed. No costs.

¶17

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶18

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

23.11.2016 Ksp

Laveti Kishore v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laveti Kishore v. The State of Telangana

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

Pamarthi Arundathi, Vs The State of Telangana

Victor Nanda John, Vs The State of A.P

Nomula Chandrasekhar Rao Vs Gondela Chandramouleswara Rao

Thabelu Dhanunjaya Vs The State of A.P

Aditya Institute of Technology and Management, Vs The State of Telangana

3rd Dimension Architecture Vs Magma Housing Finance