Allowed

Sadeq Bin Mahfooz v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC6 Mar 2020CRLP/326/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following an out-of-court compromise between the accused and the informant. The court directed deposit of costs and dismissed pending miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in P.R.C.No.390 of 2019 quashed; parties directed to deposit Rs.5,000 each with LSC and Avocates Association.

Sadeq Bin Mahfooz Vs The State of Telangana and another — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶2

I.A.No.3 of 2020 In/and CRIMINAL PETITION No. 326 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner, who is accused in P.R.C.No.390 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nampally, Hyderabad, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above P.R.C. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act.

¶5

Along with the Criminal Petition, I.A.No.3 of 2020 came to be filed by the second respondent to record the compromise. Along with the petition, a joint memo which is signed by the parties and their counsel, photographs of the parties and Photostat copies of their Aadhar Cards came to be filed. It is stated in the affidavit that at the intervention of elders and well wishers, the parties have settled their disputes in terms of the compromise.

¶6

Today, both the parties are present before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel. This Court, when examined, both the parties have stated that at the instance of the elders, they have settled the matter out of the Court and the second respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶7

¶8

In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another¹ , and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the compromise memo filed by both the parties is recorded and I.A.No.3 of 2020 is ordered.

¶9

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in terms of compromise, and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.390 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioner are hereby quashed. However, the petitioner and the second respondent are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/ - each towards costs within two weeks from today. Out of the said amount, Rs.5,000/ - is to be deposited before the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and Rs.5,000/ - is to be deposited before the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad.

¶10

6) Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

¶11

________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 06.03.2020 gkv

¶12

1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

¶13

¶14

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶15

gkv

¶16

I.A.No.3 of 2020
In/and
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 326 of 2020
Dated: 06.03.2020

Sadeq Bin Mahfooz v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadeq Bin Mahfooz v. The State of Telangana and another

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

Rahul Kumar Chowdhary Vs The State of Telangana

J. Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Teega Vasantha, And 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana

Srikanth Pasham and 2 others Vs State of Telangana and another

M.Janardhan Reddy Vs B.Ananthamma

Mr. Omer Vs The State of Telangana And Another