← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/2162/2015compromise

Ahmed Abdul Aleem , Majid v. The State Of Telangana

2015-03-17U.Durga Prasad Rao2 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Crl.P.M.P.No.2362 of 2015 in Crl.P.No.2162 of 2015 and Criminal Petition No.2162 of 2015 COMMON ORDER:

T h e defacto complainant and her counsel Sri Y.Radhakrishna Murthy are present. A.1 to A.5 and their counsel Sri H.Sudhakar Rao are present. A.6-Ahmed Abdul Azeem is absent and he is represented by A.1 who is his G.P.A Holder.

Heard both sides and perused the petition.

On the report given by the defacto complainant, the police of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad registered FIR No.324 of 2011 against accused and after investigation laid charge sheet for the offences under Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.4 & 6 of D.P. Act and learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance and registered the case as C.C.No.2 of 2012.

While so, both parties and their Counsel present today before Court and submitted that at the intervention of elders they have amicably settled their disputes and the defacto complainant and A.1 have obtained divorce by mutual consent and as such the defacto complainant has no objection for quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2012 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

and so the Court may be pleased to accord permission to compound the offence and quash the proceedings accordingly in the interest of justice.

Having regard to the above submission and in view of the fact that it is a matrimonial matter wherein the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, no useful purpose will be served even if the investigation is ordered to be continued since they have compromised and following the decision reported in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another[1] this petition is allowed and permission is accorded to the parties to compound the offence and proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2012 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.

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: 17.03.2015 scs [1] (2012) 10 SCC 303