Allowed

Alla Suresh Babu v. Telaganedi Naveen Kumar

Telangana HC27 Jul 2017CRLRC/2171/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Criminal Revision Case and permitted the accused to compound the offences after a settlement was reached between the petitioner and the 1st respondent-complainant, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

What did the court decide?

Crl.R.C.MP.No.3485 of 2017 allowed; offences compounded; judgment confirmed by lower courts set aside; petitioner-accused acquitted; bail bonds cancelled.

Alla Suresh Babu Vs Telaganedi Naveen Kumar — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

Crl.R.C.MP.No.3485 of 2017

¶3

in/ and Crl.R.C.No.2171 of 2015

¶4

COMMON ORDER:

¶5

The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘the Code’, for brevity) is filed assailing the judgment, dated 28.09.2015, of the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur, passed in Crl.A.No.112 of 2014. By the said judgment, the learned Additional District Judge, while dismissing the said appeal, confirmed the conviction of the petitioner-accused recorded in the judgment, dated 26.03.2014, of the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, passed in C.C.No.166 of 2012.

¶6

2. In the pending criminal revision case, the petitioner-accused and the 1^st respondent-complainant filed Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3485 of 2017 under Section 147 read with Section 482 of the Code requesting to permit to compound the offences and record the compromise and, accordingly, acquit the petitioner-accused, in view of the compromise entered into between the petitioner-accused and the 1^st respondent-complainant.

¶7

3. The petitioner-accused and the 1^st respondent/complainant, are present before this Court. They produced copies of their respective identity proofs. They are also identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused. Both the parties stated that they have amicably settled the matter and further asserted the terms of the compromise. They have also stated that the terms of compromise are reduced into writing in the form of a joint memo enclosed to Crl.R.C.M.P.no.3485 of 2017 and sought

¶8

¶9

permission to compound the offence and requested to allow the Criminal Revision Case and acquit the accused by setting aside the judgment of the Court below, whereby, the judgment of the trial Court is confirmed.

¶10

4. The 1^st respondent-complainant further stated that he received towards full and final settlement, the amount due and payable to him by the petitioner-accused and that he has no objection if the offences are compounded and the compromise is recorded and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed as prayed for by both of them.

¶11

5. Further, in compliance of the guidelines in the decisions in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal¹ and R. Vijayan v. Baby² , the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- (10% of the cheque amount) to the credit of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, by way of Demand Draft bearing No.887177, dated 27.07.2017, vide, Receipt No.872 dated 270.07.2017.

¶12

6. In the circumstances, Crl.R.C.MP.No.3485 of 2017 is allowed and the petitioner-accused and the 1^st respondent-complainant are permitted to compound the offences. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the judgment, dated 27.07.2017, of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, passed in Crl.A.No.112 of 2014, whereby the judgment, dated 26.03.2014, of the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, passed in C.C.No.166 of 2012 was confirmed, is set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the offence/s of which he was found

¶13