Tanneru Nageswar Rao v. State Of Ap.,

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO lA.No. 3 of 2018 IN CRL.P.No. 1187 ol 2018 Between:

Annay Shiva Anjali Devi, W/o. Venkata Krishna Rao Petitioner/Defacto Complainant AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Cou( of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Respondent

2. Tanneru Nageswar Rao, S/o. Lakshmi Narayana, Occ: Political Activist, R/o. Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District.

Petitioner/Accused Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the grounds filed in Crl.P., the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to compound the offence under provisions of the Sections 376(2),384, 420 and 506 of IPC and discharge the petitioner/Accused from the above offence, pending disposal oi Crl.P.No. 118712018 on thefileof the High Court. The Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D.Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner, the Public Prosecutor (AP) for the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P.V.N.Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, the Court made the following ORDER:

" Heard both sides.

2l The complaint allegations are that the complainant incurred loss in sarees business and hence she left the said business and on the advice of her friends, she joined in politics where she got acquaintance with accused and he took Rs.5 lakhs on the promise that he will give lift to her political career and from time to time she gave him Rs.20 lakhs. Thereafter, the accused without her consent had sexual intercourse by making false promise. Basing on the said complaint the police registered a case in Cr.No.761 of 2017. 3) Pending Criminal Petition, the parties filed the instant l.A.No.3 of 2018 seeking permission to compound the offence. ln this l.A.

defacto complainant filed an affidavit stating that herself and accused were working in the same political party and due to acquaintance, she used to give money to him and he returned the same but the money given by her in 2011-2014 was not returned by him. Therefore on the ill advice of the persons who are inimical to the accused she gave a false complaint against him with the hope that she could get back her money. She stated that except the money transactions she had no other issue with the accused. The common friends and well-wishers have conducted panchayat and resolved the money dispute between them and hence she has no interest to prosecute the case and she has no objection for conlpounding the offence.

4l lt is true that offence under Section 376(2Xn) IPC is a grave offence. However, in view of the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, this Court is of the view that even if the investigation is proceeded and parties are driven to trial no useful purpose will be served. Considering it, l.A.No.3 of 2018 is allowed and grermission is accorded to the parties to compound the offence." Sd/- N.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY ASSI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'

for AS ISTANT REGISTRAR

..2..

To

1. The SHO, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2. Tanneru Nageswar Rao, S/o. Lakshmi Narayana, Occ: Political Activist, R/o Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District.

3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor (AP), High Court, Hyd(OUT)

4. One CC to Sri D.Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

5. One spare copy.

SAH

HIGH COURT UDPRJ DATED: 19-04-2018

ORDER

tA.NO.3 0F 2018 IN CRL.P.NO. 1187 0F 2018 DIRECTION .r"ss