Mohd. Sakeel S/O. Late Mohd. Rahmath Ali v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Crl.P.M.P.No.1658 of 2015 in Crl.P.No.1553 of 2015 and Criminal Petition No.1553 of 2015 COMMON ORDER:

De-facto complainant and his counsel Sri Govind Reddy Kontham are present.

Accused and their counsel Sri K.Venumadhav are present.

On the report given by defacto complainant the police of Dabeerpura PS, Hyderabad registered Cr.No.55 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 341, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC and investigated into the matter and laid charge against the accused and learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the same upon which learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad registered as S.C.No.127 of 2012.

The parties have submitted that defacto complainant purchased a house at Dabeerpura from one Sanju and at that time A1 questioned him as to how he purchased the house without his permission and thereby grudges have developed and on 19/20.03.2011 at about 3 AM when defacto complainant was returning to his house after closing hotel, the accused restrained him and attacked him with a baseball bat and caused injuries on his nose and face.

Now, the submission of both sides is that accused and defacto complainant belongs to same locality and they are living

peacefully by solving their differences and defacto complainant has no objection for quashment of proceedings in S.C.No.127 of 2012 and therefore, permission may be accorded to them to compound the offence and quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.

Having regard to the above submission and in view of the fact that both the parties belongs to same locality and disputes arose among them are due to petty quarrel in respect of purchase of house and also that injuries suffered by defacto complainant are not grievous in nature and no useful purpose will be served if they are driven to trial as they have amicably solved their disputes and already compromised the matter, and following the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303) this petition is allowed and permission is accorded to the parties to compound the offence and compromise is recorded and proceedings in S.C.No.127 of 2012 on the file of learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.

In the result, the petitions are accordingly allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 26.02.2015 Murthy