High Court allowed interim application to record compromise affidavit and quash criminal proceedings under SC/ST (POA) Act against accused who had settled with factum complainant.
Criminal Petition allowed. Proceedings in Sessions Case No. 162/2018 under SC/ST (POA) Act quashed against accused Nos. 1 and 2.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
l.A.No.3 ol 2021
IN/AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1070 OF 2021
l.A.No.3 of 2021 : Between:
Narsimulu Jangala, S/o Narsappa, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o Peddemul Regondi, Vikarabad, Telangana.
.._PET|IONER/COMPLATNANT
AND
...RESPONDENT
Petition Under Section 320 (2) R/w 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit and Joint Memo of Compromise filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner to enter into compromise with the respondents No.1 and 2 in SC No. 162 of 2018 pending on the file of Special Judge for trial under SC and ST POA Act at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the Quash Petition in the interest ofjustice.
CRL.P.No.1070 ol 2021 :
Between
...RE''.NDENTS
Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the entire records relating to SC No. 162 o'f 2018 on the file of Special Judge for trial of cases under SC and ST, POA Act at LB Nagar. RR District, and quash the same, in the interest of justice.
.1.A. NO: 2 OF 2021
Petition under Section 482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the Memorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all furtherproceedings in SCNo. 162 of 2018 on the file of Special Judge for trial of cases under SC and ST, POAAct at LB Nagar, RR District, pending disposal of thequashpetition, in the interest ofjustice.
These Petitions coming on for hearing,upon perusingthe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and CompromisePetitionand uponhearingthe arguments of M/s Shaik Abdul Khader, Advocatefor the Petitionerin l.A.No.3 of 2021 and Respondent No.2 in Crl.P and of Srit/ohdAdnan, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1&2 in l.A.No.3 ol 2021 and Petitionersin Crl.P. and of the Public Prosecutorfor Respondent No.3 in l.A.No.3 oi 2021 and PetitionerNo.1 in Cd.P.
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
I.A.No.3 of 2O2L
IN AND
CRIMINAL PETITIONNo. 1O7O OF 2O2L
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, underSection482 of the Codeof CriminalProcedure,lgT3,isfiledbythepetitioners/accusedNos'1 and 2 seekingto quashthe proceedingsagainst them in S'C No 162 of 2018 on thefi1e of Special Judge for Trial of Cases underSC&ST (POA) Act, Ranga Reddy Districtat L.B.Nagar'The offences alleged againstthemareunderSection324readwith34I.P.CandSection3 (1) (r) of the ScheduledCastes and the ScheduledTribes(Prevention of Atrocities) AmendmentAct, 2015.
2
respondent No.2 has stated that he has filed a complaint against the petitioners/ accused Nos.l and 2 before the Station House officer, Peddemul Police Station, Vikarabad, and the same has been registered as a case in Crime.No.26 of 2Olg for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 l.p.C and Section 3 (l) tr) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and that now he has compromised the matter with the petitioners and accordingly he has approached this Court for recording the compromise.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
SD/.K.SAILESHI
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
5, Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court tor ine Staie of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 6. Two CD Copies \ ks (along with a copy of Joint Memo of compromise) \ >{,-gbr
HIGH COURT
DATED:0310312021
ORDER
l.A.No.3 of 2021 IN/AND CRLP.No.1070 ot 2021
1 tiE S I4 14:
t
z
3 J 22 MAB 2021
.L
*
,t D
C
ALLOWING THE l.A.No.3 o12021 AND ALLOWING THE CRL.P.
,
6r,
10
'ol.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
of 2O2I CRl.p. No. lo&
Between:
L.Jogu Mallesh, S/o J. Pentappa, aged about 30yrs, Occ:Labourd, R/o Regondi Village, Peddumul Mandal, Vikharabad District.
2.Mir llaseebuddin hyder, S/o S/o Mir Zainul Abidin, aged about 34 y'rs, Occ: Agriculture, fuo Flat No. 201, Ist Floor, Paramount Garden Apartments, AC Guards, Hyderabad.
...Petitioners/Accused 1 AND 2
And
1.The State of Telangana through its Public Prosecutor, having office at High Court, Hyderabad.
rt11,9 ) i^,, 1,"t(q
2 Na+simJ+u Jangala^S/o Narsappa, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Peddemul Regondi, Vikarabad, Telangana.
... Respondents
JOINT M[MO OF COMPROMISE
May it pleaseyour lordshiP,
(.^q,, il,u"
-, :tJtt: . L ,' r1l
-.i ( /t" 1l 1r\ 'l'^'t;:l:. \ t
c
HENCE IT 15 PRAYED,
This Hon'ble court may be preased to allow the petitioner to enter into compromise with the respondents No.l and 2 in SC No. 162 of 201g pending on the file ofSpecial Judge for trial ofcases under SC and ST, poA Act, at LB Nagar, RR District, pending disposal of the quash petition, in the interest ofjustice.
Sworn and signed before me
at on this the Hyderabad.3'd day of Feb 2021 (r1 DEnl T.t.PO fi1i15 t i''u _( LI )
Identified by: MOHD OSMAN SHI\HEED
aur
3 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court should allow compromise under Section 320 CrPC and quash proceedings under SC/ST (POA) Act in interest of justice.
Whether compromise petition filed by factum complainant is maintainable for quashing.
Whether parties entered into genuine compromise regarding facts alleged in the complaint.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.G. UniyalReferred
R.G. Uniyal v. Union of India
Devi DayalReferred
State of U.P. v. Devi Dayal
Suresh Kumar ModiReferred
Suresh Kumar Modi v. State
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Narsimulu Jangala
Jogu Mallesh
Mir Haseebuddin Hyder
The State of Telangana
K. Lakshman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
