Allowed

M/S.Prakruthi Infrastructure and Devel. and 2 Others v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P.and Anr.

Telangana HC13 Jul 2022CRLP/5126/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition to compound offences under IPC and quash criminal proceedings pending against petitioners. The parties had settled the matter amicably with elders before the court, leading to the recording of compromise and quashing of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Compoundable offences under IPC Sections 403, 406, and 420 were compounded; proceedings in Crl.MP.No.511/2013, Cr.No.364 of 2012, and C.C.No.533 of 2013 were quashed. Petitioners ordered to pay court

M/S.Prakruthi Infrastructure and Devel. and 2 Others… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

IA.NO.1 AND 2 OF 2 022

¶6

IN/AND

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5126 OF 2013

¶8

IA.NO.1 AND 2 0F 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. Meenakshi lnfrastructures Pvt. Ltd., "Meenakshi House,,plot No.11g, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad rep. by its Project Manager & Authorised Rep.Mr.P.Srinivas, S/o. Dr.P.Sankaraiah, R/o, Hyderabad

¶11

. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No,2/COT/PLAINANT in both

¶12

AND

¶13

It4/S.Prakruthi lnfrastructure & Development Company pvt Ltd., No.4/1, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore rep. by iis Authorised Signatory Ir,,1 r. K. N. Ba l as ubrama n ya m

¶14

Sri K.N-Balasubramanyam Director, S/o.Late K.N.Nagaraj No.4/1, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore . 560022

¶15

Mr.lvlanjunath P.R. Director,, S/o.Late P.S., Ramamurlhy, No.4/1, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur Bangalore.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 to 3 in both

¶17

4 The State Of Telangana ., rep. by its Public Prosecutor , High court of for the tftq\Cof Telangana Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENT in both

¶19

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 320 R/VV 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased TO permit the petitioner herein to compromise the offences under sections 403,406 and 420 IPC with the respondents 1 to 3 and to quash the proceedings in CRL.MP.No. 51112013 in Crime no. 364/2013 and consequential CC.No. 533/2013 pending on the file of the Vlll Metropolitan Ivlagistrate, Cyberabad, Ranagareddy District .

¶21

¶22

l.A. NO: 2 O F2 022

¶23

Petition under Section^{320 R/W482 of Cr'P C praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in thel,4emorandumof Groundsof criminalPetition,the} High Court may be^{pleasedto compromisethe offences under sections 403'406} unld^qzo IPC with ihe^{respondents 1 to 3 and to quash the proceedingsin} CRL.MP.No. 511t2013^{in Crimeno. 364/2013 and consequentialCC No'} 53312013^{pending on the file of the Vltl lr4etropolitanlr,4agistrate,cyberabad,} Ranagareddy District^.

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITIO^{NNO:5126OF 2013}

¶25

Between:

¶26

1 . M/S.Prakruthi lnfrastructure^{& Development company PvtLtd} ' .^No4/1 ' Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur,^{Bangalorerep by its Authorised srgnatory} Mr.K.N.BalasubramanYam

¶27

Sri K.N.Balasubramanyam^{Director, S/o,LateK N NagarajNo 4/1 , Tumkur} Road, Yeshwanthpur,^{Bangalore. 560022}

¶28

Mr.Maniunath P.R.^{Director, S/o.Late P.S.,Ramamurthy, No 4/1' Tumkur} Road, Yeshwanthpur^{Bangalore. 560022}

¶29

...PETITIONEFUACCUSED-^{1 to 3 respectively}

¶30

AND

¶31

The State Of A.P.,^{rep. by lts Public Prosecutor, High courtof A P} ' RESPoNDENT

¶32

' nvoeridio '

¶33

M/s. Meenakshi^{lnfrastructures Pvt. Ltd,,"Meenakshi House" plot No119'}

¶34

noZa-flo.io, luuitee nitts, Hyderabad rep. by its Project Y.'n'sqt &, Authorised^{Rep.lr4r.P, Srinivas, S/o. Dr' P ' Sankaraiah, R/o Hy0eraDao'}

¶35

,..RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.^COMPLAINANT

¶36

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.P C prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition, the High court may} Oe^pteaseO to^{quash the proceedings in CrI MP No 511/13 in Cr'No 364of 2012} ,na' cc No.533^{of 2013againstihe petitioners/A1to A3 on the file of Vlll} Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Cyberabad RangaReddyDistrict'}

¶37

CRLPMP. NO^{: 4507 OF 2013}

¶38

Petition under^{Section482 of Cr.P.Cpraying that in thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the High courtmay} [" pf.rt"J to^{stay all further proceedingsincludingappearanceof} ..the p"titfi""Llnr to A3 in cc No.533^{of 2013 on the fite of vilt Metropolitan} Magistrate, Cyberabad,^{RR Dist.}

¶39

¶40

These Petitions coming on for^{hearing,upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^{argumentsof Sri N} NARASI[,4HA RAO ,Advocate for the Petitioners and Crl.Petition^{and Respondent} No.1 to3 in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 ot 2022 and the Public^{Prosecutor on behalf of the} Respondent No.4 in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2022 and Respondent^{No.1in Crl.Petition} and of Sri S.V.S.CHOWDARY Advocate for the^{RespondentNo.2 in Crl.Petition} and Petitioner in LA.Nos.1 & 2 of 2022^.

¶41

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶42

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶43

l.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 20 LL

¶44

ln/and

¶45

Crl.P.No.5'l 26 of 2013

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

.lhis Criminal Petition is filcd undcr Section 4g2 Cr.tr.C

¶48

to quash thc procccdings in Crl.Mp.No.5l i of 20l3 in Cr.No. j64 ol 2012 and conscqucntial C.C.No.5.33 ol 2013 against thc petitioncrs/n -l to A-3 on thc lllc of Vlil Mctropolitan Magistrat.e. Clberabad. Ranga Rcdd-v- I)isrrict.

¶49

[)uririg pcndcncy of thc Crinrinal petition, thc parlies havc cornpromiscd thc rrattcr anci accordinglv, rc-sponclcnt No.2de facro cornplainanr has fi lcd I.A.Nos. I and I ol 2022 under Section 320 read with Secrion 482 Cr.p.C. to perurit hirn to enrer into compromisc, record lhc terms of'cornprornise thcrcof and compound thc ol'l-cnces by guashing the proceedings against accused in the said crirne. Along with the said applications, a joint rnerro which is signed by the partics and their counsel, photographs of thc partics and photostar copies ol- their Aadhar

¶50

¶51

Cards came to be filed. In the affidavit filed it has been stated that respondent No.2 _ cle facto complainant has filed a complainl against the petitioners /accused before the police Station and the sanre has bcen registered as Crime No.364 of 2012 for the olfences under Secrions 40j, 406 and 420 IpC and police filed final report srating that the cornpiaint as civil in nature. Aggrieved by the sarne, respondent No.2 li led protest petrtron and therealier albresaid C.C.was registered. \'h ile so, now the de facto complainant has entered into compromise with the accuscd and accordingly approached this court for recording the compromise with the petitioners/accused and they havc settled the matter outside thc Courl and he has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶52

3' 1-,day, borh the panies are presenl before this court and they were identified by their rcspective counsel. This Court, whcn examinc<J, both thc parties have stated that at the instance of the elders and well wishers of. both the parties, they have settled the t.natter out of rhe Court and the second respondent

E--t_

stated that they havc scttlcd^{thc lrlattcroLlt ol- Cor-trt ancl Ilc has no}

¶57

objection 1br quashing thc^{procccdir-rgs agairrstthc} 1-rctitiolrcrs.

¶58

4 In Gian Singh r'. State of^{Punjaband anothcrr'thc Apcx} Court hcld as undcri

¶59

"'l he prtut't ttl.thc lliyh⁽ otrt t^itt rlttu:hitty^{tt c'rintinul} protcetliny or l"lR rtt trtntltlrtinl itt^{t'.tarci.sartlil.t ittlttt'tnl} jttt ivlictitn i: di:littct und Llillatt'nt lrttrtt lht: ltrtttt't ,qitt'tt ltt^Lr trintit'ttrl^(ottt l fi)t crttttltotntlittg^{llrc rtllattct'ttrntfur} '\t't'lirtn i20 ol thc⁽ t\lc' lnh('tL'111l)r,rr('/^{l\ rt/ ttiLlt'1tlt'ttilttLlt'vilhttrt} \tultttol \ litttitLttitttt^htrl tl^{lttts /r) h('dY('r(l('./itt ,tt,'tt ,l ttillt} tlrc .gtrirlclitta t'rt,!tultt'tl ttl:tr.it it,,tttr^{ti': liitrt \t'(ttt L' tllr} t'ntl: o/ ltrttit, ot liil^lrt l)1'ttL'tll^{ttllt!.\r' ttl I/tt'} |tt^{ot'.''\ t'f trttt} (ourl.^'

¶60

Ial<irtu into eorl\i(lclitli()rl tllc .ltrrlgtllcrlt^{()1' lllc .\l)c\ (-()tlrL} rcJirrcd to abo\c urtcl thc^{iitct ol scttlcnlclll alri\c(l ill [.ct\ccn thc} paftjcs and as thc ol-linccs arc cottlpoLll'ldablc.^{l. .\os. ] and Iol'} l02l arc alloucd. ConscqLrcrltll. thc^{('rirrrirlalI'ctition is allori'cd} and thc procccdinqs in^{(lll.'11'.No.-ill ol'1013 irr ( r.No.l64 o1'} 20 l2 and in conscclucntial C.('No.5-ll 01'l0ll^{()n thc tllc 01'VIII} Mctropolitan Nlagistratc.^{(i1'hcrabad.Ilanga Itccldl [)istrict} against thc pctitioncrsl.^- I^{Lo .-1.} ltrc^{hct'cbrqtrashcd. Ihc} pctitioncrs arc dircctc(l to pr\ costs o1' Rs.5.00()'-(^{lltrPccs l:ir,'c} -l'housand Orrlv) to thc 'lclltrtcllrta IIiph ( oLrlt ,\dvocrtcs

¶61

'(2012)^{l0 SLrlllcrnc( oir|l (]lscs l0-l}

¶62

¶63

Association within tcn ( 10) days fi.om today, and file proof of the

¶64

satxe into the t{egistry.

¶65

As a scqucl, thc misccllancous appiications, il.any, pcnding

¶66

in the crintinal petition shallsrand closcd.

¶67

To,

¶68

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI //rRUE copy// DEPUW REGTSy'RAR SEcToNE#FIcER

¶69

[Metroporitan Masistrate, Cyberabad Ransa Reddy ;?&yJi, 2. The Station House Officer, Raidurgam police Statjon , Cyberabad.

¶70

Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUT]

¶71

One CC to SRt. N NARASIVHA RAO Advocate [OpUC]

¶72

One CC to SRt. S V S CHOWDARY Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

The secretary, Terangana High court Advocates Associarion, Hyderabad

¶74

Two CD Copies

¶75

One Spare Copy

¶76

(along with a copy of Joint memo of Compromise)

¶77

COST lr/EMO:

¶78

Note: Amount paid by Sri. N Narasimha Rao , towards imposed by Cost of [i.3;333i1t^{"" rhousand onrvl to rJansai,iish b;r'; ndvocates Asiociation,} Receipt No.58257 Date:13107 t2022 CDL bs \ V-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310712022

COMMON^ORDER

|A.NO.1 AND^{2 0F 2022} IN/AND CRLP.No.5126^{of 2013}

¶83

1H E ri I ..i i-
Y
o 25 JUL 2W
<.
&
€.S;>;,; C: ,,

¶84

ALLOWING^{THECRiMINALPETITION}

¶85

¶86

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶87

Crl.p.No.5125 of 2013

¶88

Between:

¶89

M/s. Prakruthi lnfrastructure & Development Company Ltd. #4/1, Tumkur Road, yeshwantpur, Bangalore-560 022 Rep.by its Authorised Signatory M r.K.N.Balasubramanyam

¶90

Sri K.N.Balasubramanyam, Director, S/o.Late K.N.Nagaraj, M/s. Prakruthi Infrastructure & Development Company Ltd. #4/ 1, Tumkur Road, yeshwantpur, Bangalore-560 022

¶91

:. ,tj,tl

¶92

3l Mr.Manjunathrp.Rr; Oirecibr;,',,.'

¶93

M/s. Prakruthi Infrastructure & Development Company Ltcl. #4/1, Tumkur Roaci, yeshwantpur, Bangalore-560 022

¶94

....Petitioners/Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 And

¶95

M/s.Mecnakshi lnfrasrructures pvt. Ltd. Having its registered office at "Meenakshi House" plot No.119, Road No.10, f^ubileeHills, Hyderabad-500 033 Rep.by its Proiect Manager and Authorised Representative Mr.p.Srinivas

¶96

"'Respondent/Respondent/complainant

¶97

zlrhe state ofrelangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana HYderabad

¶98

...Respondent

¶99

R F Y P N N ST RESPONDENT

¶100

1l Thar rhe above Criminal petition was filect by the Respondents 1 to 3 !e19in^^{to Quash the proceedings inCrl.t t.p.wo.Si 1' -of} 2013 in Cr..N-o."364 /2012 and consequentiat C.C.tto.S:3 of 2 013 pending on rhe f e of^VIII Metropoliran Magisrrare, Cyberabad, nanga Redif oi.tri.t fo. th" offences U/s.403,406 and 420 IpC.

¶101

That pending disposal of the Criminal petition for Quash, with the intervention of elders and well wishers, both parties sett'led the matter amicably and there are no disputes pending against them. That the

¶102

petitioner^{s No.1 to 3 andresPondent No 1 hereininte ndsto comProurise} in the^{maiterandfiling this Petition for comPoundingoI the offencesof} Sec.403,4^{06 and420 IPC}

¶103

tter^{is settledas full} 3l The 1"^{respondentfurtheragrees} re claims Pending^{that the nlaaga} inst^{each otircr} and^{finalsettlement and thereno mo} otlter^{document and this} or^any over^{the subiect mattercheque} comPromise^{lsfull and final and tlrere are nodisputes betwee n the Partics} For^{the reasons statedabove'it is Prayedtlratthis Hon'bleCourt} may^be P^{leased to quash theProceediugs in CrlM.P.N o.511/2013in} Cr.N^{o.3 54/2013 and consequentialCCNo.533of 2013Pcncling on the file} of Vlll^{Metr opolitanMagi strate,cyberabad,Ranga ReddYDistrictandto} RE pass such^{other orderororders as this Hon'bleCourtmaYdeemfit and} proper^{in the interestof iustice} ForAN^{PRAKR UTHD DEVI INFRAS TRUCTU} co.^LTo.' 1] IAN Authorl^{sed Signatory} 2)l A.tu /@I\I"j 3l Petitione^rs /^{Pe titioners /Acctlsed1 to:.i} w- J') Coun lfo he Petitiotlers a) 1st Res dent /^{ResPondent/ComPlainant}

¶104

PIace:HYderabad oate : zzla|l'lo^t+-

¶105

Counsel^{for the 1stRespondent}

M/S.Prakruthi Infrastructure and Devel. and 2 Others v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P.and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Prakruthi Infrastructure and Devel. and 2 Others v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P.and Anr.

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

J. Raghuraj, Vs State of Telangana

B.Srinivas Reddy, R.R.Dt., Vs Smt. B.Sangeetha, Hyd and 3 Otrs. Rep Pp.

Garikapati.Paul Raju, Sonabhadra Dist, U.P. Vs Garikapati Padmaja, Madhira

Gudepu Balaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

M.Vijaya Krishna Goud, R.R.Dist. Vs M. Arundathi, R.R.Dist. and 2 Othrs

Smt.Anita Balasubramanyam, Bangalore., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp., and Anr.