Adepu Prashanth v. The State Of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECETVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11275 OF 2023 Between:
Adepu Prashanth, S/o. Srinivas Aged about 30 years, Occ- Business, FVo. H.No.2337/1 , tvlarket area, Sulthanabad, Peddapalli District, T.S. ...PETITIONERYACCUSED AND
1. The State of Telangana, through, P.S. Pet Basheerabad, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, HyderabadRespondent
2. Ashok Kumar Nagunoori, S/o.Shankaraiah Age 55 years, Occ- Business, RJo. Plot No.204, beside Balaji Hospital, Barathi Avas, Canton Park Lane Cyberabad, Telangana.
...Defacto COMPLAINANT/Respondent.
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings in S.C.NO.1 153 of 2021 On the file of Principal Senior Civi Judge, Medchal, Medchal-Malkagiri District (Crime No.238l2O2O of PS Pet Basheerabad) against the petitioner/Accused. l.A. NO: 1OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further Proceedings including appearance of the petitioner S.C.No.1153 of 2021 On the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, Medchal-Malkagiri District pending disposal of quash petition. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise and quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.238/2020 U/Sec.307, 448 rlw 34 IPC of P.S. Pet Basheerabad.
) l.A. NO: 2OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioners herein to compound the offences with the Respondent No.2 herein by recording compromise and by allowing the Criminal petition filed by the petitioner against Crime No.238/2020 U/Sec.307, 448 rlw 34 IPC of P.S. Pet Basheerabad.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the N,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PRAVEEN BONKURI, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Badam Arvind Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following ORDER:
-7 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11275 of 2023 ORDER:
In this Criminal petition, the petitioner as well as respondents have filed I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2023 for compounding the offence with the respondent No-2 for recording the compromise and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused in Crime No.238 /2O2O, tnd.er Sections 307, 448 r/w 34 of IPC on the file of P.S.Pet Basheerabad and to pass such other or orders in the interest of justice. 2.
The matter was referred to the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee for verification and identification of the parties. The parties have appeared before the Committee on 24.71.2023 and a report dated 24.71.2023 was furnished before this Court submitting that the identification of the parties was established. Horvever, at the time of recording the compromise, it is noticed that one of the offences under which the accused rs charged rs under Section 307 of IPC, which is a non-compoundable offence.
TMD.J Crl.P.No- 11275 of 2023 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that there was no intention on the part of the accuscd to cause any grievous hurt to the victim i.e., daughter of the respondent No.2 and therefore, the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC are absent and hence, the case can be considered for compounding. It is submitted that the daughter of respondent No.2 is now married and living happily and therefore, there is a compromise between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner and therefore, the same should be recorded and the quash proceedings should be allowed.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also piaced reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kamesh and Others Vs. State of Delhi and Othersl, wherein the Court observed that where the parties are living in the same neighbourhood and they know each other for a long time and Cross-FIRs were registered regarding the same incident, it means that the injuries were suffered by the accused side also and both the parties want to bury their past and lead a happy life without having any grievance against each other and therefore, the offence under Section 3OZ of IpC, in such t 2022 /r)lc /oo42o2
TMD.J C.LP.No.17275 of 2023 circumstances can be compounded. He also placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Gurpreet Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others2, wherein the High Court has permitted quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise by observing that the trial Court has deleted the Sections 3O7, 148, 188 of IPC & Section 25 of the Arms Act.
5.
In the case before. this Court, it is noticed that the compromise is in between the accused and the respondent No.2 and statement of victim has not been recorded. Further, as seen from the contents of the complaint, the incident has not occurred on the spur of a moment, but the accused had come to the victim and her family and tried to attack the respondent No.2 in the market place and subsequently he followed them to their house, trespassed into the complainant's apartment and attacked the complainant's daughter with a knife in the parking area and thereafter, he attacked the complainant a-lso. Further, it is also noticed that the accused had quarreled with the complainant at their native place on an earlier occasion ald though the issue was compromised on mutual understanding, 2 CRM-23609 2O2l in/and, CRM-M-16489 2021
TMD,J Crl.P.No.1127S of2023 the accused bore grudge towards the complainant and attacked them with an intention to kill. Therefore, it appears to be a case of compromise only to escape the trial under Section 3O7 of IpC. 6.
The correctness or otherwise of such allegations would only come out during the course of trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow the recording of compromise for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and the quash petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court to prove his case. The Trial Court is however, directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of Six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.
Accorclingly, This Criminal Petition is dismissed 8.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR LW'w- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The XXll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal.
2. One CC to SRl. PRAVEEN BONKURI Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OPUC]
4. Two CD copies.
cvk Y/
HIGH COURT DATED:2211212023 1HE sTA rt ( oo PZo 2 3 I'IAB 2021 c t t DEsPAT
ORDER
GRLP.No.11275 of 2023 CRL.P. IS DISMISSED.
'F +{&