The Single Judge quashed criminal proceedings under IPC 403, 406, and 420 against the petitioners following a settlement between the parties under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Criminal proceedings in Crl.MP No.511 of 2013, Cr.No.364 of 2012 and C.C.No.533 of 2013 were quashed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTHDAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSHREDDY
l.A.Nos.1 AND 2 OF 2022
IN/AND
CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 5127OF 2013
l.A.Nos.1 AND 2 OF 2 022
Between:
M/s. Meenakshi lnfrastructuresPvt.Ltd., "Meenakshi House", Plot No. 119, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 33, representedby Project Manager& Authorised representative Mr.P.Srinivas, S/o. Dr.P. Sankaraiah, aged 47 yeats, R/o. Hyderabad.
..PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2/COMOPLAINANTin both
AND
RESPONDENT in both
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 320 rlw 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetition,the High Court may be pleased topermit thepetitioner herein to compromise the offences under sections 403,406 and 420 IPC with the respondents 11 andto quash the proceedings in CRL.[/P.No. 51112013 in Crime no. 364/2013 and consequential CC.No. 533/2013pending on the file of the Vlll Metropolitan lvlagistrate, Cyberabad, Ranagareddy District.
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section 320 rlw482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lr/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to comprmise offences under sections 403,406and
/
420 IPC with therespondents11 and to quash the proceedingsin CRL MP No' SlliOil in Crimeno. 364/2013 and consequential CC.No. 533/2013 pendingon tn" tif" of the VlllMetropolitan Magistrate,Cyberabad' RanagareddyDistrict'
RIM PE ON : 5'l oF 20
Between:
Smt.Anitabalasubramanyam, IdljiJwiii-rl".lti,tunit<ur Roaa, Yeshwanthpur, BansaloreW/o Balasubramanyam'aged - 56002253 years,Occ
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED.4
AND
The StateOf AP., represented by its PublicProsecutor'tlighCourt of A P ' Hvaeiinaa. RESPoNDENT
..,RESPONDENT/DEFACTOCOMPLAINANT
PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in theMemorandumof Groundsof Criminal Petition'the High Courtmay U"pf u"r"a toquash the proceedings in Crl MPNo511of 2013 in CrimeNo 364 in C.C]ruo.533 of 2013 against the PetitioneriA4on inJr"li "i iOi Z ""a tn" ",insequentiatVlllMetropolitan Magistrate,Cyberabad' Ranga Reddy District'
c P.N 4508 201
Petition underSection482 of Cr'P'Cprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition'the High Courtmay UJ'pf""."J tostay all further procedings includingappearanceof , the oetitioneAR.+ in C.i.No.S33 of 2013 on the file of the Vlll Metropolitan "n,,|jsirii"i;,' cvt"r"u"J i"ng" Reddy District,pending disposat of rhe criminal petition.
These Petitionscoming on for hearing,upon perusingthe Memorandum of Grounds ofcriminal Petitionand uponhearing the argumentsof SriN NARAS|MHARAo,AdvocateforthePetitionersandCrl.PetitionandRespondent No.1inl.A.NoS.,]&2of2022andthePublicProsecutoronbehalfofthe Respondent No.2in l.A.Nos .1 & 2 of 2022and Respondent No 1 in Crl Petition and of sri s.v.s.cHowDARYAdvocatefor the RespondentNo.2 lN crl.Petition and Petitioner inl.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2022.
The Court madethe following:OROER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
l.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022
lnland
Crl.P.No.5127 of 20'l 3
ORDER:
'lhis Crirrinal l)ctition is filcd undcr Scction 482 Cr.P.C. to quash thc procecdings in (lrl.MP.No.5 ll of 2013 in Cr.No.364 o1' 201 2 and in conscclucntial C.(1.No.533 of 201 3 against the petitioner/A-.+ on rhc lllc of Vlll Mcrropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. Ranga Rcddl' District.
2
Cards came to be lrled. ln the affidavit filed it has been stated that respondent No.2 - de facto complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioners /accused before thc porice Station and the same has been registered as Crimc No.364 of. 20 12 lbr the offences under Sections 403, 406 and 420 lpC and police tiled final report stating that the complaint as civil in nature. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 lj led protest petition and thereafter albresaid C.C.was registered. While so, now the de Jbcto complainant has enrered into compromise with the accused and accordingly approached this Court f<rr recording the compromise with the petitioners/acc used and they have settled the matter outside the Court and he has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
.l
stated tlrat thcv haVc scttlcd thc rrilttcr or-rt ol- Cou|t and hc has no
ob]cction lbr qurashing thc procccdings against thc petitioncrs.
I In(iian Singh r'. State ol'Pun.jab and :rnothcrr,, thc Apex
Court held as Lindcr
I
"7-1rc lxtrtr ol thc Iligh('tt rt in tluu.thing u triminul pnttcatling rr l' lR ot contpluint in cxcrti.tc o/ it.r inhcrcnt .juri.stlittioni: di.stinct unldi.//trcntlitnllhc pot'tt'givn loLt crinintl c'rttrt t .litr tttntpotrnding th,: o//intrt uruler ,\cc'lion J20 ttl thc( rnla. lnhcrcnt ltottcr is o/ ride plenitutlc v,ith rut .\tdtL!tott: linlitLttit)n bttt it ln: trt bc cxetci.tttl in uctord v'ilh thc ytritlalina cngrultc'd in .suc'h potcr vi:: li) lo tccurc lhe cncl.s ofju.ttice or(ii) to p c'(nt Ltl)u.\c of thaprocc.*s of un;' ('ottt l.
5.'l'akine into considcratio,r thc .ludgrncnt oi'thc npcx Couft
rclarrcd [o ut-rovc anc] tlrc lirct ol'sr-ttlcnrcrrt ar-rivcd at bctwccn thc partics ilnd as irll thc ollL'nccs arc conrpor.rndablc. LA.Nos. I and 2 ol 2022 arc allowcd. Conscqucntly. thc Crirninal Petition is allowcd and thc procccdings in(lrl.MP.No.5l I oi 2013 in Cr.No..i64 ol'20 l2 and in conscqLrcntial C.(1.No.5.i3 ol 2013 on the lilc ol'VIII Mctropolitan Magistratc, Cybcrabad, Ranga Rcddy District. arc hclcbl qr-rashcd against thc pctitioncr/A-4. '[he pctitioncr is dircctcd to pay costs o1'Rs.5,0001(Rupccs Five 'l-housand Only') to thc 'l'clangana IIigh Court Advocates
'(20 tl)t0 Suplcn'rc( ()ull ( ascs.10.1
,1
Association rvithin ten( l0) day's lion.r todar,. anci lllc prool'o1'thc
same into thc l{cgistry'
As a scqucl, thc nrisccllancous applications. il-anv. pencling
in thc criminal petition shallstand closcd
SD/.B.SATYAVA DEPUTY REGIS ,TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTION FFICER
(along with a copy of Joint memo of Compromise)
COST MEMO:
_ Note: Amount paid by Sri, N Naraslmha Rao , towards imposed by Cost of Rs. 5,0001(Five Thousand Only) to Telanga"" High b"rri ndvocates Association, Hyderabad,
Receipt No.58258 Date:13tlt t2022
CDL \ v
HIGH COURT
DATED:1310712022
COMMON ORDER
l.A.Nos.1 AND2 OF 2022 IN/AND CRLP.No.5127 of2013
a 1 l.l E .S l.,
Y '{t^<br>9
26 JUL ?W
t)
)t
ALLOWING THE CzuMINALPETITION o#
i
IN THEHIGHCOURTFORTHE STATEOFTELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
Crl.P.No.s1Z7of 2013
Between:
1 ) Smt.AnitaBalasubramanYam #/n. Ba las u b ra manya m, Direct or' f.4/s.prat ruttri Infrastructure & Development Company Lro' #4/ 1, TumkurRoad,YeshwantPur' Bangalore-560022 Petitioner/
Petitioner/Petitioner/AccusedNo'4
And
1l M/s.MecnakshiInfrastructuresPvt Ltd'
HavinE itsregistered office at ir,a".;rktl.,i frouse" Plot No'l l9' Road No 10' ILrbileeHills, HYderabad-500 033
ii"f.uy loProiect Manager andAuthorised RepresentativeMr'PSrinivas ...Respondent/Respondent/complainant
2)The Suteof Telangana,
Reo.bv its PublicProsecutor, Hign Courtfor theStateoITelangana Hyderabad
...Respondent
R E T ST RESPONDENT
1l That theabove Criminal Petition was fited by the. Respondents1 herein to Quashthe proceedings inCrl M'PNo511 '.of 2013 in Cr.No.364 /2012 "na.onr.qu"nii'iic -yberabad'lto'S:: Rangaof 2013 Reddypending District foron the file the of VIII Metropolitantutaglstrate' offencesU/s.403,406and 420IPC'
2\ Thatpending disposal of the Criminal Petition for Qlash' withthe well wishers'both parties settled the matter ul**.;;;;J;i ;i,f,,' "na amicablv andthereu,. no il'f it'pendinf.againstthem That the llilii""l. ,"0'."tp""a""rlo i t-'"t"inintendsto compromise in the '*-jli.". ,^01,,i-1tii.p"i't'on iot topounaingof the offencesof Sec 403' 406 and420 lPC.
lft /,.!
il. rJi:"iii";'"'":iX'Jl#Ii::i::"s,rhat the ma.er is scttred as ruri T'claimspending against each orher or arry compromise over the rua;".t ir'rrrir"a ^"i'';:^: nrrr #:l: .other ar.ir.nt anrl this I there are no disputes between the parties.
(,
.Forthereasons stated
may be pleased ro ouash ril"l:: ltis.prayed that this Hor'bte Court :i);iflya,;Iil*",*,#Tililiiifiji#y,:Li,,J:i1'^,",# pass such ",ri". ".i".'r?'r'ijji:l{o-:'.'u.la, Ranga Reddy Disrricr and ro proper in ,rr",n,"."rior,riiuersas this Hon'ble Court may deem fit anj
fq
Petitioners/petitioner/Accused
4
.ss ["]
Cou e r the petitioner
r,
't Resp t/ Responden t/Compla inaD I
Piace; Hyderabad Date :
Counsei for the 1.i R csp tl ent
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings after the parties have compromised the matter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harian Singh v. State of Punjab and AnotherExplained¶48
Harian Singh v. State of Punjab Anothar
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.
Smt. Anitabalasubramanyam
The State of A.P.
A. Santhosh Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
