Allowed

Baseer Ahmed, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd

Telangana HC23 Aug 2022CRLA/1224/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal. Noting the parties amicably settled the dispute pre-amendment despite the charge's nature, the Court recorded the compromise, allowed the I.A. for compounding, and consequently set aside the conviction and sentenced the appellant for Section 354 IPC. The appellant is acquitted.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.3 of 2021 allowed; Crl.A. No.1224 of 2015 allowed and petition set aside; appellant acquitted of Section 354 IPC offence.

Baseer Ahmed, Hyd Vs P.P., Hyd — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^321s I

¶2

i I ! ! i i i i I ! I I t

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

TUESDAY, THE^{TWENTYTHIRDDAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW^TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{Dr' JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI}

¶8

t.A.NO.3 0F 2021 lN^{CRL.A.NO.',t2240F 2015} AND

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL^N o;12240F 2015

¶10

criminal Appeal under^{section 374(2) of crl.P.cagainstthe Judgment dated} 2gt1212015 in sc^{No.217t20130n the file of the court of the v Additional} Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, (Mahila Court), Hyderabad'}

¶11

Between:

¶12

Baseer Ahmed, Sio^{Basheer Ahmed,}

¶13

..,APPELLANT

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court,} Hyderabad.

¶16

Z. VlA.VisooA, S/o.Mohd.Abdul^{Kaleem,aged 38 years,Rl/o'H'No'9-4-62133'} Meraj Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RES'ONDENTS

¶18

For the Appellant: SRI^{MOHD.ABDUL QUDDUS'Advocate}

¶19

For the Respondents^: SRI^{ABDUL MATEEN QURESHI'Advocate}

¶20

The Court delivered the following^{: JUDGMENT}

¶21

TIIE HON,BI,E DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶22

I.A. No.3 of 2021 in C rl.A. No.l224 of 2015

¶23

ANI)

¶24

CRIMINAL APPUAL No.l224 of 2015

¶25

JUDGMIiNT:

¶26

This crirninal appeal is filed by the apJrellant-accuscd aggrieved by' the^judgment dated 29.12.2015 passed in S.C. No.2l7 of 2013 on the llle ol V Additional Metropolitan liessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, convicting him for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentencing him to sttffer rigorous irnprisonment fol three years and fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suff-er simple impristiument tbr one month, before Amendment Act. 201 3.

¶27

During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellantaccused and the rcspondent-complainant settled the dispute amicably and filed I.A No.3 of 2021 seeking permission to comprornise the matter antl to compound tl-re offenc,: by recording the said cornpronrise enrl to acquit the accused. The parties have liled a joint rrlenro^,-t I L()nrprornise along with l.A. No.l of 202 I

¶28

DT.GRR,J Crl.A.No.l224 of 20t S

¶29

¶30

stating that the appellant-accused and the respondent-complainant settled the dispute between them amicably. The said memo is placed on record.

¶31

When the matter is called, the appellant-accused and the respondent-complainant appeared before the court. They are identified by their respective counsel. In proof of their identity, they filed photostat copies oftheir.Aadhar cards and produced the originals before the couft.

¶32

As seen fi'om the record, the accused is charged for the otlence under Section 176 read rvith Section 5 I I IpC, but was convicted for the o{fence under Section 354 IpC, and he was acquitted for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. The allegation against the accused was that when the victim, a minor girl, aged about 8 years was proceeding to Arabic tuition along with her sister, the accused called her by showing chocolate and when she went inside the house, took her to his bed room and on her hue and cry, the accused beat her and consequently victim came out and inlormed the sarne 1o the tuition teacher and he intum

¶33

DT.GRR,J CrLA.No.l224 of 2015

¶34

¶35

I r i , i i I I I T II 1i i i a :

¶36

I l

¶37

( I

¶38

informed the same to rhe tarher of the victim i.e. the complainant

¶39

herein.

¶40

Now the cornplainant stated that the girl was aged 1g years and she was in Saudi Arabia pursuing her studies and they were intending to compound the case with the accused and that his daughter also was nol interested in proceeding with the case, though the accused was convicted by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.

¶41

Thc learncd l)ublic Prosecutor submitted that the offence under Section 354 Il,( ras non-compoundable by virtue of the amendment in the ycar 2013.

¶42

But, consiclering that the offence took place on I 5.09.20 I I i.e. prior to the amendment and r.he same was compoundable at rhat rinrc, and the victim and her father are not intending ro proccecl u irlr thc rnatter, it is considen:d fit to permit the parties to conrpr()nris,-' the nratter in terms of the compromise entered into belu ccn Ilrcr .

¶43

DT.GRR,J Crl.A.No.l221 of 2015

¶44

¶45

¶46

Accordingly, I.A. No.3 of 2O2l is allowed.

¶47

Consequently, Crl.A. No.1224 of 2015 is allowed setting aside the judgment dated29.12.2015 passed in S.C. No.217 of 2013 on the file of V Additional Metropoliran Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC and thc appellant-accused is acquitted for the said offence.

¶48

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

Sd/-B.S.CH NJEEVI .iotNT ISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

l.TheVAdditionalMetropolitanSessionsJudge(MahilaCourt),Hyderabad. (with records. if anv)

¶54

z itre SfatOn AoussOfficer,^{P.S.,Humayun Nagar,Hyderabad'} 5. fr" bCi t" tnJ^{puOticprosecutor,High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad (OUT)

¶55

ohe CC to Sri Mdhd. Abdul^{Quddus' Advocate} [oPUc] S. One CC to Sri^{AMul MateenQureshi' Advocate IOPUC]}

¶56

Two CD Copies

¶57

One Spare^CoPY

Kj .)-

HIGH COURT

DAffEDi23lo8l2o22

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.1224 of 2015

.g
tS

ALLOWED.

Baseer Ahmed, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baseer Ahmed, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd

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

Gugulothu Venkanna Vs Rajesh Lai Sahu

T.S. Markfed, Miryalaguda Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Martha Srinivas Vs Vemula Pushpalatha

Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs The Deputy Director and Another

Shri Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another

Penugonda Somanna Vs Pallapu Srinivas