Anthapur Sudhakar Reddy v. The State Of Telangana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FR{DAY ,THE TWENW NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMI REVISION CASE NO: 421 0F m22 ALONG WTH t.A. NO. 30Fm22 Cfl. Revision Gase Under Sections SSI A aOl 9f Crl'P'C' aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21-08-2018 in crl.A"No. 962 of 2017 on the file of ttp Court if the Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad confirming the Judgment dated 03-08-1017 in C.C.No. 22 ot 2016 on the file of the Court ofthe Xll Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. Between:

Anthaour Sudhakar Reddv, Director, M/s Janatha Ready-mix Concrete (lndia) privatb Limited, Tataguni Village, Opposite BWSSB Water Tank, Kanal(apura t{oad, Bangalore.

...PETITIONER/ Appellant / Accused No. 4 AND

1. The State of Telangana , Rep. by its Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

2. lriUs Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Office at Reliance Magestic . - rilitoing, D;itto. a-z-ozb, Road Ne 1o..Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Rep bv its Spe6ial Power of Attomey Holder Sudhir Kumar Pola' .. 2d RespondenU Respondent / Complainant lA NO: 3 OF 2022 Between:

M/sBharathiCementCorporationPvt.L!d.,ofFrceatRelianceMagesticBuildilg' ii;, 116. a--r€m, n6ao t{e.to. Banjara Hiils, Hyderab-ad, Rep. bvits-Special Power "initiilei noraei suonir kumar Poia.

.. Petitioner / 2*f,,esPondenU And Anthapur Nagi Reddy, Managing Director, M/s Janatha Ready-mix Concrete iffi;i PriGt-" iimit'rjo, tatigu-ni Mtlage' oppositeiwssB wder Tank, ii'i""(rpri"-i{.a0, tiaibatoiel .. RespondenU Petitioner/ Accused -2 -t

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Petition under Section 482 r/w. Section 320 of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hign court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/Complaint to compound the 6ffences which is subject mafter of C.C.No. 22 of 2O16 on the file of Court XII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.

IANO: 2 OF 2022 Pgtition under Section 397 ('l ) of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment made in Judgment dited 21logl2o18 in cd. Appeat No.962 of 2017 on the file of the court otitre vtt Root. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which was passed in confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment made in Judgment dated 03/og/2017 in C.C.No.22 of 2016 on the fite of the Court of th; X[ Speciat Magistrate, Hyderabad and release the Petitioner on Bair, pending disposai of the ab6ve crl. Revision Case .

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. V. YADU KRTSHNA SATNATH Counsel for the Respondent No. .t: THE ADDTTTONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : M/s. Rajesh Maddy The Court made the following ORDER:

- l

THE HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE K. SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.421 OF2022 ALONG WTIH l.A-No.3 OF 2022 I COMMO ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and, 1101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.4 aggrieved by the confirmation of conviction vide judgment dated 21.08.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.962 of 2017 by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions ]udge, Hyderabad, passed by the XII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.22 of 2016. 2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leamed Additionat Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record. 3.

The complainant is before this Court having filed application vide II , I I.A.No.3 of 2022 to permit the complainant to compound the offence on the ground of compromise.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that on the intervention of elders and well wishers of both the parties, the disputes were sorted out amicably. In terms of compromise, the complainant and accused No.4 have entered into a Memorandum of compromise dated ffi!7.2022 and I

in terms of the same, the complainant is not interested to prosecute the -t crirninal revision case.

5.

Since issues have been settled and complainant had been compensated to their satisfactiory this Court deems it appropriate to allow the I.A.No.3 of 2022 and consequently, the Criminal Revision Case on the ground of compromise. Accordingly, the judgment dated 21.08.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.962 of 20L7 passed by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside, insofar as the petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned. If the petitioner/accused No.4 is in jail, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.

Miscellaneous applications, iI any pending, shall stand closed Sd/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REG //TRUE COPY// \ To sEcTtON OFFTCER !. IJre Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judqe, Hyderabad.

2. The Xl Special Magistrate , Hyderabad

3. Two CCs to PublicProsecutoi, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to SRt. V. YADU KRTSHNA SA|NATH, Advocate tOpUCI

5. Qn-e CC to Sri M/s. RATESH MADDY, Advocate (OPUC)

6. Two CD Copies KuUkam

HIGH COURT DATEDz30|O1l2O24 E STATE { ; 1E nrt

ORDER

?t?-[ Cl + ):

,i CRLRC.No.421 of2022 Along with I.A.No. 3 of 2022 * D{:S(r'

ALLOWING TEE CRL.RC.