Allowed

Md Omer v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Dec 2021CRLP/9536/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC against accused No.3. Proceedings were quashed following a verified joint compromise between the petitioner and the complainant, confirmed by the Legal Services Committee's report.

What did the court decide?

IAs 2 & 3 of 2021 and Crl.P. No.9536 of 2021 allowed; proceedings in C.C. No.209 of 2017 quashed against the petitioner/accused No.3

Md Omer Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR-T'HE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

t.A.NOS:2&3OF2021

IN/AND

Between:

CRIMINAL PETIT|ON NO: 9536 OF 2021

¶8

V9_ 9-r"t,^{S/o. Khaja lvloinuddin, aged S0 years, Occ.Business,Fl/o. H.No.1B-7-} 21212811188, Kattatalab, Jahangir Nagar, Charminar, Hyderabad. T.S

¶9

...PET|T|ONERyACCUSED AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep.. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad through P.S lbrahimpatnam, Hyderabad, TS .....Respondent No.1 /Complainant

¶11

Sri Motyalu Rajkumar, S/o. tr/uthaiah @ Kanthaiah, aged 47^years, Occ. Business. Rl/o. H.No.'17-5-321, Mathakirki, Dabirpura, Charminar, Hyderabad, T S

¶12

...RESP.NDENT/RESP.NDENT

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of^{cr.P.c praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition, the High courtmaybe pleased} to call for the records^relatingto cc^No.209 _of^{2017(crimeNo. 288 of 2016,} dated.15/07/2016 of^{PS lbrahimpatnam)register[dfor the offencesu/s 420 of IPC} pending on the file of the^{learnedlV tr/letropolitanMagistrate at lbrahimipatnam'} it.R.oiitri.t, T.S^{and quash the same againstthe petitioner/accused No.3"}

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 oF 202',1

¶15

PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the lMemorandum^{of Grounds of Criminal Petition'the High Court may be pleased} i. .i"v,li trrt,ei^{proceedings inctuding appearanceof the petitionerS/accused No.3} in cc No 2Oe^{or zor zi6iir"} - Ni zbb of _ 2016. dated.15/07/2016 of PS lbrahimpatnam)^{registered fii in" offunt"s u/s 420 of IPC pending on the file of the} learned lV^{Metropolitantr,lagisirateat lbrahimipatnam'R R District'T S' and quash} the same^{against the petitio'ie riacc'sed No 3' pending disposal of the above Crl P'}

¶16

|.A.NOS.2^{& 3 0F 2021 :}

¶17

COMMON^CT.

¶18

i:",^{jx"l)?y.!?iilT,x';?1fl ,,H:t!,i3i,%:Hfi:,1i-liffi} i'$::,:l'*-;xi,

¶19

AND

¶20

The State^{of Telangana,.Repby its Py[l1c P^rosec$or Hioh Court for the State} or re^{ran g a na, at Hyo era #iPi#,iiir,' riES e;dJ@} HIS;:T;S;Jfi". oono"^n,

¶21

Business'^{R/o'H No'18-7-}

¶22

1. Md Omer,^{S/o. Khaja lvloinuddin'aged 50 years'} -Occ - 212t28t1t88, Kattatarab, ux;ilii N"';;'', bfi;'',''"lr#$ElERlt'tt?rrrroNERS

¶23

t.A. NO: 20^{F 2021}

¶24

Petition under^{Section 320(6)of Cr'P'C praying that in the circumstances} stated^{in the} affidavit^{filed therewith,tn" jiigf -CS'i m-ay oe pleased to permit the}

¶25

i i I I

¶26

¶27

compromise^{petitionin the above Crl.Petitionin} oetitione^{r/respondentNo 2 to filea} ierms of^{Joint ComPromiselvlemo}

¶28

N 3 F 02 perition under section 320\21^{ot cr P c praying that in the tlt'T:l1nt"'} stated in^{the Memorandrr.""tt;l;o.oicriminat Petition, the Highcourt maybe} the CC^{No'209 of 2017(CrimeNo'} oleased to^{record tn" to'p'"o']'"-io} "o'po'no )aa ot zoto,^{out"o.tslozlzo"id?'ps*iol'r'mpatnam pending on the file of the} pendingonthefileortnetearneolVMetropolitanMagistrateatlbrahimfoatnam, R.R.District,^{T.S and qru.r' iri" ptceedingsthereon aglinst the respondentNo 3} herein by recording^{the compromise'}

¶29

This Petition^{coming on for hearing'upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of^{criminal peiiiionand upon -hearing the arguments} -of^{Sri BETHI} VENKATESWAnIU,^{nOvocat"toi tfru'Petitioner in Crl.P. No.9536/21and for the} R;;;;;r1 r.r".i^{ii rn rrro: Lno 3 o,f 2021 and of the Public Prosecutor(TG) on} behalf of the^{Respondent flo.t in Crl.P'No'9536/2021 and lA Nos'2& 3 of 2021 and} sii i.nu, singh,^{Advocatefor the Respondent No.2 in crl.P.No.953612021 and the} petitioner in lA Nos.2 &^{3 ol 2O21.}

¶30

The Court made the^{fotlowing: COMMON ORDER}

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN I.A. NOs.2 AND 3 oF2 027 IN/AND CRIMINAL PDTITION No .9536 OF 2027

¶32

coMM ON ORDER:

¶33

This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/ accused No.3 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2O 9 of 2Ol7 pending on the lile of IV Metropolitan Magistrate at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy district, relating to cr.No.2gg of 20 16 of the Ibrahimpatnam porice Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IpC.

¶34

During the pendency of the present Criminal petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.2-de facto complainant filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2O2I to permit him to compound the offence and to compromise the case in the above said Calendar Case.

¶35

Vide order dated 15.12.2021, this Court, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as r,l,ell as respondent No.2, directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad (for short, THCLSC'), on or before 24.12.2021 for their identification and also directed^the Secretary to submit a report by 24.12.2021. In^compliance with the said order dated 15.12.2021, the^{Secretary has} submitted his report dated 24.12.2021.

¶36

In the report of the Secretary,^{THCLSC, Hyderabad,it is} stated that in obedience of the^{orders dated15. 12.2021, the}

¶37

{

¶38

petitioner^{and the 2.a respondent haveappearedbefore him} along^{with their counsel and on examinationand verification} of their^{particularsfrom their Aadhar Cards' they were ta'1iied'} Thus the^{identification of both theparties has been} established.

¶39

The^{parties herein have filed a jointmemoof} compromise'^{The said joint memo of compromiseand the} report of^{the Secretary are placed on record'}

¶40

The Joint memo^{of compromise wouldrevea-1that the} 2nd respondent^{lodged areportagainst the petitioner} herein/Accused No.3^{which isregisteredas acase in} Cr.No.2BB of 2016 by the Station^{House Officer,} Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. Ourirlg^{pendencyol the said} case, they have settled the disputes between them amicabiy and he has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein/Accused No.3 in C.C.No. 2O9 of 2017 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy district.

¶41

In view of the said report of the Secretar5r, THCLSC, Hyderabad and a-1so in view of the compromise entered between the petitioner and respondent No.2, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021 are aliowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.209 of 2017 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy district relating to Cr.No.288 of 2016 on the file of the

¶42

¶43

Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam police Station, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein/aqcused No.3. B. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

¶44

shall stand closed.

¶45

¶46

Sd/-N, CHANDRAS EKHAR RAO ASSISTUIREGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY/I

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

¶49

'I . The lV lrzletropolitan l,4aorstrate, Cyberabad, at lbrahimpatnam. 2. rhe station House orri6r, Ib';i i;;;fi;;"i8it.!,Bl"tion, cyberabad. ' Iyo""?rt;l"r33lio"'^{Prosecutor, uigrr coud ri-r tl stiiu 6ii"'iiidrnr,}

¶50

1 9n"^{CC to Sri Bethi Venkates.warlu.} Advocate (OpUC)

¶51

i. 9n"^{CC to Sri L.Ram Sinsh.} Aor..ii" topUci" 6. Two CD Copies

¶52

One Spare Copy

¶53

(copy of the joini memo enclosed )

X-'

HtGH COURT

DATED2AI'1212021

COMMON ORDER

l.A.Nos.2 &3 ot 2021 ln/and CRLP.No.9536 ol 2O21

¶61

lAf
1\i ^'
i z7Jrti2o22

¶62

ALLOWING THE CRL.P. IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE.

av
*Y
0

I ] t I I

IN (illrl HIGFI COURI I.OR THE STAIE Or- TELANGANA A I: HyDJiRABAD. T s Crr.^p. No. 1fj1 orzozt

¶67

in C.C No. 209 of20t7 (Crime No .288 of20t6 of P.S: Ibrahimpatnam) (On the file of the Hon'ble IV Nletropolitaa NIa!tstrate, Rachakonda at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy Dis trict, T.S) Betweeneen

¶68

Betweeneen Md Onrer, S/o. Khaja Moinuddin, aged 50 years, Occ: Business. Y:. T:11^{,g-r;212/28/usB.Kattatatab, JahangirNagar,} L narmtnar, Hyderabad. T.S

¶69

. .. Petitioners/ Accused No.3 AND L The State of Telangana Rep.. by its Public prosecuror. High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad, tttrough P.S, Ibrahimpatnam. HyJerabaa, iS ...Respondent No.l /Complainant

¶70

Sri Motyalu Rajkumar,

¶71

S/o. Muthaiah G Kanthaiah.aged .17 years, Occ: Business o. I-1.No.17-5-lt I . \lathakjrkr. Dabirprl.a. (.harminar. Hvder Respondent No.2/ D e-f'acto Complarnanr ,IOI 'P;;:,6",, IS[ RIISPONJEN'f ilvlEN{O I.It,iit) No.2I}Y TI.IE PETI'TIONER &

¶72

X{av it please r,our Flonour

¶73

r l. It is most hurnbly submitted that. thc respondent No.2 herein l.ras lodged a complaint drrttd' I 5-07-201 6 and the police o1'PS iSrahinipatnam registered a case vide Cnr.ne No. 288 of 2016, dated.l|-A1 -2016 for ths offences under $ection 420 of iPC agairrst thc acciLsed No.1 & 2,.Later the said poiice fiied a charge shget by implicating the petrtiorler as accused No.3 for the olfence u/s.420 of IPC and the e is numbered as CC No. 209 of 201'1 'and. pending on the file of the leamed Metropolitan Magistrate at I brahimipatnam. R.R. District. T.S.

¶74

It is further submitted that, during^pending of said e , t}le respondent No.2 has came to knor,r,that , even through no specific accusatio is made against the^petitioner; but the said police has implicated the^{petitioner asaccus} No.3. Hence after knowing^the real facts the respondent No.2 has^{realizedthat u'ithouparticipationof petitioner,the} accused No.l & 2 b1 impersonation^executedthe stered sale deed^videdoc.. $.o.5038/201,1. dated.28-08-2014^{in his taror by taing huge amount. hencc b)} consitlering the^{innocent-colt1.re pctitioner.the responden{No.2has decided to u'ithtlra.r} tlre casc i.e..^{( (} \o.l(){)^{ol ll)ll((r'irrri:}"o' lii8 ol 20l6' darcd l5-(ir-1016oi I'}S} ibrahittrpatLta )^{rr:uistct.erllill' the ollcnccsuls '1:'0 of IPLi pendirlgcrn the file rll ihc} lealnecl i' \lcrilrirolitalt^{'lagisil'ar-. er ibrairii.r'ripatnan.r'R.R' District' lS" acainst the} petition,.rt, acctt,.cci \o^.r,.

¶75

J I submit thai.^{in viewof aniicableunderstandi} g bctween the Petitioner^eind o, praying^{the Hon'ble Coutr} respondent No.2.^{the.v have Jiteda Joint Compromise Me} oi r0 I^{7(CLimc No 28} of 2016, dated.l 5-07-2016^of Contd...2' il',rry^p"rfrfr ry VL"'-

I \

1 I

1 I

stered^{ior the oflencesui s 420of lPC pending on the file oi}

¶81

PS^{lbrahimPatnam) re} Magistrate^{at- lbrahimiPatnam'R.R. District,T'S, agirinstthe} learned^{fV MetroPoli} herein^{and to that effect therespondenlNo 2 herein filed} petitioner/aocused^No' any^{coercion, forss61 undueinfluence'}

¶82

swearing^affidavitwi

¶83

ofthe^{amicableunderstanding between the petitioner anii}

¶84

1. It is^{submitted that,} in, theY^{are filingthis Joint Memo, praying the Hon'ble Cotttt} the resPondent^{No. /.} C No.209^{of 201'7 (CrimeNo.288of 2016, dated l5-07-2016of}

¶85

to^{quash the aforesaid} FS ibrahimPatna^{) regtiered for the oilfeneesr-r/s420 of IPCpending on the file of the} Magistrate^{at lbral.rimipatnam, R,R. t)isrrict,'I S' againstthe}

¶86

Iearned^{lV )vleiioPoli} as the^{respondentNo 2 has decicled to rvitl.rdrawthe above case}

¶87

petitionerlaccused^No'3 hence filed^{separatesworn affidavits to that effect}

¶88

belbre^{this llon'bleCo}

¶89

It is^{further sub} inl ed that. in^{vieu of the above understanciing'the respoldent No'2}

¶90

.,de-tacto-comP^{lainanrintendstowithtlrawtheabovecaseagainstlhepetitioner/accuset.i} on'ble^{Cor.rrtrecorcl his no objection' to allow the aboveQuasir}

¶91

r'o.3^and PraYin-u^this pass such^{othtr' order or crdersin the interest of ir"rstice'}

¶92

petition as PraYed^for

¶93

L lence, this^{Joint Com} se Memo.

¶94

\ir
i
i )
!
I Petitioner
Date: 29 -11'2021
i I'lyderabad. I M ^Afwwil-
I
I (.rpo{a.*n17--
I
tioner Counsel Res t No.2

Md Omer v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md Omer 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

I Shiva Kumar and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

J. Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Tungala Laxmi Raghava Vs State of Telangana

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs The State of Telangana

Alladi Laxmaiah Vs State of Telangana

Soma Panduranga Vs The State of Telangana