Allowed

P.M.Sai Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jan 2024CRLP/262/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC quashing proceedings against petitioner/accused No.3 in S.C.No. 136 of 2017. Court held that since de-facto complainant compounded offences under SC/ST (POA) Act and IPC, no further progression against other accused was tenable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed and proceedings against petitioner/accused No.3 in S.C.No. 136 of 2017 quashed.

P.M.Sai Prasad Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^321s ]

¶2

I :

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY,^{THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE^{SMT.JUSTICET. MADHAVIDEVI}

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITIO^{N No: 262 ot 2O24}

¶8

Between:

¶9

P.M.SaiPrasad,S/oP.MurliGopal,Aged33yrs,Occ:PoliticalActivist'National iiiil.rr."i slYlir, nlo^{r-6-a+l"GLng"; e'thi" colonv, Alwal' secunderabad-} 500010.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED^No'3

¶11

AND

¶12

The State^{of Telangana, Representedlcy.its Public Prosecutor High Court of} Telangana through-Pet^{Basheerabad Police Station}

¶13

...RESPONDENTNO.l/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Edulaoanti^{Rai Jithendranath, S/o Surendernath'Age:56 yrs' Occ: Business'} Rio H-No 1-1 i-39,^{Temple Alwal, Medchal'}

¶15

...RESPONDENT^{No'ZCOMPLAINANT}

¶16

Petition under^{Section482 of Cr'P'C praying that in thecircumstances} stated in the^{Memorandumof Groundsof Criminal Petition'the High Court may-} O"^pl"rt"o to^{call for the recordi in S.C No' 136 of 20'17on the file of the Court of} ^vll ipJilr-i"ttiJs^{Judge roiriliof offences undersc/sT(PoA)Act- cum} Additional District^{and sessions .tudge, pan99 Reddy Diskict at L'B Nagar'323'} 'zso iFC ""d section a trl iii tsl ot stisr (ioR) nct and quash the same in the interest of^justice.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1^{OF 2024}

¶18

Petition under^{Section482 of Cr' P'C prayingthat in the circumstances} stated i; the^{Memorandum of Groundsof Criminal Petition'the High Court may} #;l;;;"; i"^{giant stay of itt further proceedlngsrn S C No 136 of 2017 on the} ril'"i tn.-c",,it^{of specialGssionsJudgeFoi Trialof offences under sc/sT} ipbal^{nJ cilvlt nooitionat District and-SessionsJudge'Ranga Reddy District} It i.d r'r"grr-^{:23, 290 IPC ,nd S".tion 3 (1) (r) (s)of SCiST (POA) Act'including.} ;;;";;r;;;^{p*aing oisposaioitt'eaoou6'criminat Petition in the interestof} justice.

¶19

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri C V} sRINATH, Advocate^{for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutoron} behalf of the Respondent^{No.1 and NoneAppeared for the RespondentNo 2'}

¶20

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶21

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MA-DHAVI DEVI

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.262 of 2024

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Crimina_l Petition is hled under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 (for short^.Cr.p.C.,) by the petitioner/ accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No. 136 of 2Ol7 on the file of ]earned Special Juclge for Trial of Oifences under SCs & STs (pOA) Act-cum-Vil Additional Dislrict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, Distncr at L.B. Na.ga_r. The offences alleged against the peritioner are under Secticn 3(1)(s) (r) of Scheduleci Castes and Schecluied Tribes (prer.entior, of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 20 15 and Sections 323 and 29O ol. Indian Penal Code (for shcrt 'IPC').

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petirioner/ accused No.3 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State. Perused the record.

¶26

The petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.3 in S.C.No. 136 of 2017. The respondent No.2ld.e-facto complainant and accused No.3 approached this Court rvirh a pra_-er to quash the

¶27

¶28

proceedings on the ground of compromise arld filed compounding application. This Court vide order dated 24.02.2021 in Criminal Petition No.7 18 of 2O2l had permitted the respondent No.2 to compound the alleged olfences and accordingly quashed the proceedings

¶29

4 The effect of permittrng to compromise and to compound the offences under Section 3(1)(s)(r) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 20 15 a-rrd Sections 323 and 29O ol IPC^q;ould amount to the offences itself being compounded and not again st particular offender. \Mhen the respondent No.2 /de-facto complainant has compounded the offences itself, the question of proceedings against the other accused in the same Sessions case does not arise. Similar view^q,as taken by the erstrvhile High Court of Judicatu::e, Andhra Pradesh in

¶30

Kanna.l Kishore Biga.ni u. Sha.gtn Sunder Bung and othersl.

¶31

$..^{Accordingly, the CriminalPetition is allorved.The proceedings} against the petitioner/ accused No.3 in S.C.No.136 of 2Ol7 on the hle of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District ald Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, are herebv quashed

¶32

'zots 1z1ALD^{(crr.) 460 (.{p)}

¶33

¶34

Miscellaneous applications^{pending if any, in this Criminal}

¶35

Petition shall stand^closed.

¶36

sd/- P.^{cH. NAGABHUSHAM} ASsrsraur^Recls R

¶37

/ffRUE^COPY/'

¶38

SECTION^OFFICER

¶39

To, 1 The Soecial^{SessionsJudge For Trial of otfences under SC/ST (POA) Act-} cum Vll Additional^{o,st''"t ani's"tliJnt iuoge' Ranga Reddy District at}

¶40