B.Ravi Kumar v. State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2044 OF 2019 ORDER :

The petitioners are A.1, A.2, A.4, A.5, A.7 and A.9 in C.C.No.1421 of 2016 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. This case was registered on the strength of F.I.R.No.271/2012 on the file of Kachiguda Police Station in relation to offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC.

2. While so, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would inform this Court that the matter has been settled with the complainant in F.I.R.No.271/2012 and that two Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) were executed by and between the parties on 16.04.2019. The original MoUs are produced before this Court. The second respondent/complainant, T.Mohan Kumar Sarma, is present in-person before this Court and produced his Aadhar Card in proof of his identity. He is also identified by Sri V.S.Krishnudu, learned counsel representing him in the Court below.

3. As per the first Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.04.2019, the second respondent herein, being the first party therein, undertook that pursuant to the understanding and settlement of their disputes, he would withdraw all his claims and cases, including the criminal case arising out of Crime No.271/2012 on the file of Kachiguda Police Station, which was numbered as C.C.No.1421 of 2016 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. The second Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.04.2019 records that pursuant to the

settlement arrived at between the parties, the second party thereto, being M/s.Pranava Avenues Pvt. Ltd., B.Ravi Kumar, Boorugu Srinivas, Bandaru Ashok, M.Vijay Bhaskar, R.Venkatappaiah and K.Sridhar, who are the petitioners herein and accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 in C.C.No.1421 of 2016, undertook to handover the actual physical possession of Flat No.G1, admeasuring 1686 Sq.Ft., in 'Siri Sai Pranavas Gokuldam' situated at Kachiguda, Hyderabad, and declared that the second respondent/complainant shall be the absolute and exclusive owner of the said flat.

4. The second respondent/complainant states that he has no objection to the closure of this case in the light of the afore-stated settlement arrived at by and between the parties.

5. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.1421 of 2016 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, insofar as these petitioners are concerned. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 17th April, 2019 sur