M. Bikshapathy Goud v. The State Of Telangana And Another

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI of and .

Nos .

.I and Crl.P.No.6934 of 2019 COMMON ORDER The criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.184 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offences under Sections 506 IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r )(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act No.1 of 2016), against the petitioner/A2. 2.

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019 are filed under Sections 320(6) and 320(2) of Cr.P.C., by both parties seeking leave of this Court to compound the offences and to record compromise as the matter was settled out of the Court due to intervention of the elders. Along with the affidavits, they filed a joint memo of compromise stating that the 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner/A2 and A1 and the same was registered as Cr.No.389 of 2018 on the file of Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda District, for the offences under Sections 193, 199, 200, 419, 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(iv)(v)(x)(xv)(f)(A)(r)(s), 2(i)(ii) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and Amendment Act No.1 of 2016 read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against A1 and A2 and that during pendency of the case, both parties, at the advise of the elders and well-wishers, got resolved the differences between them and that the 2nd respondent

has no grievance at all against the petitioner/A2 and she has no objection for quashing of the charge sheet against him. 3.

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant and the petitioner/A2 are present and they are identified by their respective counsel. They filed xerox copies of their aadhar cards before the Court. When this Court enquired the parties, the 2nd respondent-de-facto complainant and the petitioner/A2 stated that they entered into compromise due to intervention of elders.

4. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, I find that it is a fit case to grant leave to the parties to compound the offences and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A2.

5. In the result, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019 are ordered. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.184 of 2019 on the file of Special Court for the Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/A2.

6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.

_____________ G. SRI DEVI, J 16th November, 2019 sj