← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/14972/2014compromise

Yakub Husssain, S/Omahmood Hussain v. State Of Telangana,

2015-03-10U.Durga Prasad Rao2 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Crl.P.M.P.No.15859 of 2014 in Crl.P.No.14972 of 2014 and Criminal Petition No.14972 of 2014 COMMON ORDER:

The de-facto complainant and her counsel Sri C.Vikram Chandra are present. Accused Nos.1 and 2 and their counsel Sri M.Arvind are present.

On the report given by defacto complainant, the police of Santoshnagar PS registered Cr.No.18 of 2014 against the accused for the offences under Sections 354 and 323 IPC and investigation is reported to be pending.

The allegations are that on 23.01.2014 at about 2.15 PM when the defacto complainant was taking out her vehicle Activa from her house, the two accused standing inside the gate of the house attacked her and slapped on her hips and right cheek and when she raised cries, they fled away.

While so, both the parties and their counsel present in the Court today and submitted that there were mortgage disputes between the parties which were amicably settled at the intervention of elders and they want to lead harmonious and peaceful life and therefore, complainant has no objection for quashment of proceedings and therefore, they may be permitted to compound the offence and quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.

Having regard to the above submission and considering

the fact that though the offence under Section 354 IPC is cognizable, still the nature of allegations do not show outrage of modesty except meeting assault and further considering that root cause of the incident was due to mortgage disputes which the parties have amicably settled and no useful purpose will be served if the investigation is ordered to be continued, and following the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303) permission is accorded to the parties to compound the offence and proceedings in Cr.No.18 of 2014 of Santoshnagar PS are hereby quashed in terms of joint memo filed by the parties.

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

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 10.03.2015 Murthy