Allowed

A.V.A. Karthik Sharma v. The STate

Telangana HC20 Feb 2017CRLP/1519/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two criminal petitions seeking to quash proceedings for a non-compoundable offence under IPC Sections 435 and 34. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court observed that non-compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC if parties have compromised outside court and filed a joint memo. It recorded the settlement and quashed the case.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.14 of 2017 of Musheerabad Police Station were quashed against all petitioners; the Compromise Understanding Agreement and Joint Memos were recorded.

A.V.A. Karthik Sharma Vs The STate — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION M.P. No.1157 OF 2017 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.1205 OF 2017

¶3

AND

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION M.P. No.1490 OF 2017 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.1519 OF 2017

¶5

COMMON ORDR:

¶6

The former Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), is filed by accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 viz., Gujja Harish, K. Sandeep, A. Mahesh, A. Kranthi Kumar alias Kranthi and P. Nikhitesh, respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.14 of 2017 of Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 435 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

¶7

The latter Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed by accused No.2 viz., A.V.A. Karthik Sharma seeking to quash the very same proceedings and the offence alleged.

¶8

Criminal Petition M.P. Nos.1157 and 1490 of 2017, under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C., in the respective petitions, are filed by the de facto complainant Bujender Yadav, who is respondent No.2 in both the Criminal Petitions, along with his affidavit and Joint Memo, signed and affirmed by both parties and their respective counsel, requesting to permit the parties to compromise the matter and consequently to quash the proceedings against the petitioners stating

¶9

ASN,J 2 Crl. P. Nos.1205 AND 1519 of 2017

¶10

that with the intervention of the locality elders, friends and parents of the petitioners, they settled the matter between them, outside the Court, in terms of the Compromise Understanding Agreement, dated 23.01.2017, which is filed in Crl. P. M.P. No.1490 of 2017, and the Joint Memos dated 09.02.2017 and 16.02.2017, respectively.

¶11

The de facto complainant and the petitioners as well as their counsel are present and the parties are identified by their respective counsel, Sri L.N. Bhadriraju, Sri Y. Vasudeva Rao and Sri Kancham Praveen Kumar. The parties have also produced photostat copies of their respective “Aadhaar Cards” in proof of their identity and also attested on the case bundle.

¶12

On being asked, the de facto complainant and the petitioners report that they have compromised the matter between them outside the Court with the intervention of the locality elders, friends and parents of the petitioners by settling all the disputes and differences between them in terms of the Compromise Understanding Agreement, dated 23.01.2017, and to that effect they have also filed separate Joint Memos, dated 09.02.2017 and 16.02.2017, respectively, and request the Court to record the compromise and consequently to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶13

Since the offence punishable under Section 435 read with Section 34 of IPC, is non-compoundable, the parties moved the present criminal petition along with the petitions under Section 320(2)

¶14

ASN,J Crl. P. Nos.1205 AND 1519 of 2017 3

¶15

of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings, as it is a settled law that non-compoundable offences can also be compounded under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as held in Gian Singh

¶16

v. State of Punjab¹ .

¶17

Since both parties have affirmed the terms of the compromise in their respective Joint Memos, requesting to record the compromise and to quash the offence alleged against the petitioners intending to live peacefully as they are residents of same locality, and in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh¹ , both Criminal Petition M.P. Nos.1157 and 1490 of 2017 are allowed recording the compromise between the parties in terms of their respective Joint Memos, referred to above.

¶18

Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed, at the admission stage itself, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.14 of 2017 of Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad. The Compromise Understanding Agreement, dated 23.01.2017, and the respective Joint Memos, referred to above, shall form part of the record.

¶19

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in both the Criminal Petitions stand closed.

¶20

__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

¶21

February 20, 2017. PV

¶22

1 2012 (10) SCC 303

A.V.A. Karthik Sharma v. The STate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.V.A. Karthik Sharma v. The STate

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

Md.Ahmeduddin Vs The State of Telangana

Devineni Raja Sekhar (Nehru) Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sanjay Agrarwal, Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Ahmed Khan , Mohammed Ahmed Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Vijender Kedia Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Nalla Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp