Allowed

Md. Shabbir v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Feb 2021CRLP/360/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed an appeal against conviction by recording a compromise arrived at between parties out of Court. Proceedings in crime registered for offences under IPC and SC/ST (PoA) Act in 2015 were quashed following settlement and presence of parties.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.194 of 2020 registered under IPC and SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2015 were quashed.

Md. Shabbir Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY , TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶5

l.A.NO.3 0F 2021 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 360 OF²⁰²¹

¶6

|.A.NO.3 0F 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Muriki Srinivas, S/o.not known, Aged about^{31 years, Caste. SC-Nethakani, Occ. Cook,} Fl/o.Q.No. D-1371 ,5 lncline Area, Godavarikhani,^{Peddapally District} ....Petitioner/ Respondent No.2/^Complainant

¶9

And

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its SHO, P.S.Godavarikhani} -l^{Town, through} its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶11

...Complainant/ Respondent

¶12

tr/d. Shabbir, S/o.Hussain, Aged^{about 36 years, Occ. AR PC 192 CAR'} Ramagundam, R/o. 5 incline Area,^{Godavarikhani, Peddapally Distric!} -

¶13

Md. SFameen, S/o. Hussain, Aged^{about 33 years' Occ. not known, Fl/o,5 lncline} a rea, Godavarikhani. Peddapally^district

¶14

. . .. Petitionersi Accused No.1 &²

¶15

Petition under section 320(2) of cr.P.c^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the lvemorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition,the High court may be} pleased to record the compromise in Crl.P.No.360 of^{2021 and Quash the} proceedings against the Petitioners/A1 and 42 in crime. No.194^{of 2020 on the file} of the P.S. Godavarikhani^- lTown, offences^{U/s.448,323,341} ,290,506,^{and r/w} 34 of IPC and section 3^{(1) (0 (s),} 3^{(2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) AmendmentAct 2015}

¶16

|.A.NO.2 0F 2021

¶17

, Petition under Section 320(6) R/w. 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the N/emorandum^{of groundsof Criminal Petition, the High} Court may be^pleased to^permit the^{petitioner/ Respondent No.2/Defacto} Complainant to compounding the Crime^No.194 of^{2020on the file of the P S.} Godavarikhani-l Town offences U/s.^{448; 323,341, 290, 506 and r/w. 34 of IPC and} Sections 3(1 ) (r) (s), 3(2)^(va) of SC/ ST^{(POA)Amendment Act, 2015.}

¶18

This petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{Memorandum of} grounds of Criminal Peiition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Venkateswarlu Dasari, Advocate for the^petitioner and of the^{Additional Public Prosecutor on} behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri^{lt4ogiliAnaveni, Advocate for the} Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶19

cRL.P.NO.360 0F 2021:

¶20

Between:

¶21

Md. Shabbir, S/o.Hussain,

¶22

tt/d. Shameen, S/o. Hussain,

¶23

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 &² AND

¶24

The State of Telangana, Rep, by its Public^{Prosecutor, HighCourt of Judicature} at HYderabad ...Respondent

¶25

tt/uriki Srinivas, S/o.not^known

¶26

,..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶27

Petition under Section 482^{of cr.P.c prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the lVlemorandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition, the High courtmaybe pleased} to^quash the^{proceedings in FlR.No.194l2O2O,dated 09/05/2020,on the file of the} Godavarikhani-l Town^{Police Station, Peddapally District, against the} petitio ners/Accused No.1 and 2 herein in the interest^{of Justice}

¶28

l.A. NO: l OF 2021

¶29

Petition under section 482 of cr.P^{.c praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the lr,4emorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the HighCourtmaybe pleased} to stay of all further^{proceedingsin FlR.No.194/2020,dated 0910512020, on the file} of the Godavarikhani^-l Town Police^{Station, Peddapally District, including Arrest of} the P et itio n e rs/Acc^u sed^No.1

¶30

This Petition coming on for^{hearing, upon perusingthe fvlemorandum of} Grounds of criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the argumentsof Sri tMoGlLl} ANAVENI, Advocate for the Petitioners^{and of the Additional Public Prosecutoron} behalf of the Respondent No.1 and^{of sri Venkateswarlu Dasari, Advocatefor the} Respondent No.2.

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

)l r

¶33

HONOUR,ABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶34

l.A.No.3 of 2021 ln/and CRIMINAL PETITION No. 360 of 2021

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, fited this Crimina[ Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.'194 of 2O2O of Godavarikhani I Town Police Station, Peddapatly District, which was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishabte under Sections 448, 323,341, 290 and 506 read with Section 34 of l.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (3) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduted Castes and Scheduted Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015.

¶37

During pendency of the Criminal Petition, l.A.No.3 ol 2021 came to be fited by the second respondent to record the compromise. Atong 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 fited. In the affidavit it has been stated that at the instance of the etders, they have settled the matter out of the Court and the second respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶38

Today, both the parties are present before this Court and they were identified by their respective counset. This Court, when examined, both the parties have stated that at the instance of the elders and wetl wishers of both the parties, they have settted the

¶39

matter out of the^{Court and the second respondentstatedthat he} has no objection for^{quashingthe proceedingsagainst the} petitioners/A-1 and A-2.

¶40

4\ ln the tight of the compromise^{arrived at between the parties,} the compromise memo fited^{by both the parties is recordedand} l.A.No.3 of 2021 is ordered.

¶41

Accordingty, the Criminat^{Petition is attowed in terms of} compromise, and the^{proceedings in Crime No.194of 2020 of} Godavarikhani I Town^{PoticeStation,PeddapattyDistrict,against} the petitioners/A-1 and^A-2 are^{herebyquashed.Miscetlaneous}

¶42

petitions, if any, pending , shatt stand ctosed.

¶43

Sd/.K.AMI\NAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \.,'

¶44

SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To 1. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Godavarikhani'

¶46

z. fH" Strt..-fouse^{Officer, dodavarikhani} -l^{Town Police Station'} Godavarikhani,^{PeddapallvDistrict.}

¶47

3 i;; CCr'i"^{tf,6 puOiic'pr,irecutor,High Court for the State of Telangana,} Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶48

4 oh; CC to Sri^{Mogili Anaveni, Advocate (oPUC)^-}

¶49

o;; cc io^{sri VerikateswarluDasari,Advocate(oPUC)} 6. Two CD CoPies Kj.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910212021

ORDER

I.A.NO.3 of 202'l IN/AND GRLP.No.360 of 2021

¶54

SrA
1 t{ I{.
a)e
L) 0 3 r4AB 2021 .Lo
.k
Dic
)4

¶55

¶56

¶57

IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR TH!. s,tATE OF TELANGAN;

¶58

Crl.p.No. _l/o or 2o2o

¶59

.,.

¶60

F'- n," i#'/xil, (ot Coctavarikhani _t Town police,S-tlliln, peddapalty clistricr)

¶61

Between:

¶62

¶63

lt^li*, "*y1", S/o.nor knorvn, Aged abotlt 31 years, Casre :SC_Nethakani, occ.: Cook, R/o.e.No. D_r371, s r""iilar.., Godavarikhani, peddapally District.

¶64

. .. . Petitio n er/ Re sponcl entNo. 2 / Compl atnaat AND

¶65

I The State of Telalgana, Irp.^{ty its SHO, p.S. Godavarikhani_I} Town, Through its public prosecutor, High C6urt Buitding, Uyaera6aa

¶66

..Complainant/ Respondent

¶67

I Md. Shabbir, S/o.Hussain, Aged about 36 years, Occ; AR pC 192 CAR. Kamagundam, r/o. 5 incline Rrea, Codavarikhani, Peddapally District.

¶68

¶69

l'ld..Shameen, S/o. Hussain,

¶70

|q:o:9.".1^{33 years, Occ: not knorvn,} K/ o-, 5 Incline area, Codavarikha:ri, Peddapally d istrict.

¶71

..Petitioners/Accused No.t & 2

¶72

JOINT MEMO

¶73

It is submitted that the petitioner/ De_facto_Complainant have amicably seftred the dispute at the intervention of erders and $'ell wishers arrd the family members and the matter has been compromised berrveen them. Hence the both parties,

-+-

o. loa^{r /} of^2O2O bovc^{saidCrirne' N} offences^{rr/ S'} r'omisc^{in thc a} camc^{to cot$P} arikl-rani'l^Torvn' d^{scctron 3 (1)} or1^{thc {ile of} thc 290,^{P:S'Ooclav506' and r} ,'v 34^{of IPC an} Act^{2O 15 and} 448,323',^341', A)^Amcndment f sclsT^(Po a)^o rs^{as this Hon,blc Courtmay} (d 1s1,^{3 (2)(v} or^orclc sucb^othcr ordcr stances^{of theCase'} pass dccrrt^{nt and proper in the circum}

¶79

ant 'ieti o{l^er lR2 Counsel^lor

¶80

,QW Pctilioner/^A1 Petitioner lL2 Jr. u- t)!/t[, d^" for^{the Petitioners/ r1r"".-} , ^^^,'"cd Counsel .i

¶81

Bv"t:;?""%64"r. )

Md. Shabbir v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Shabbir 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bashamaina Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Ghouse Vs The State of Telangana

N.Prittvi Raju Vs State of Telangana

Manthani Sanjeeva Rao Vs State of Telangana

E.Saikumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana

G.Madhukar Goud Vs The State of Telangana