Telangana High Court
G.Ravi vs The State Of Telangana on 18 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024
In/and
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6125 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.207 of 2022 on the file of the learned IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Section 25 (1B) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Heard Sri. N. Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were residing in the same house in weaker section locality and they are workers. He further submitted that in the said locality, the common 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6125 of 2024 toilet was constructed by GHMC and the same is only available to them to use. The only allegations against the petitioners are that petitioner No.1 took the knife and attacked respondent No.3, who is the victim, and he received bleeding injury from his left hand wrist and in the meantime, petitioner No.2 caught hold the hand of petitioner No.1. The entire incident was happened in the toilet at the time of using it. Learned counsel further submitted that in the said incident respondent No.3-victim received only minor injury and therefore, Section 307 of I.P.C do not attract to the present incident.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that petitioners due to the intervention of the well-wishers and friends the matter between the parties has been settled amicably out of the Court and agreed to compromise the matter. Therefore, he prayed the Court to compromise the matter.
5. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan 1, wherein it is 1 AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 1296 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6125 of 2024 categorically held that it would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether the incorporation of Section 307 of IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 of IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc.,
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed for compounding the offence under Section 307 of IPC as there are serious allegations against the petitioners and they attacked the victim, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were residing in the same house. The main allegations against the petitioners are that petitioner No.1 attacked respondent No.3-victim, who received bleeding injury from his left hand wrist and in the meantime, petitioner No.2 caught hold the hands of petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6125 of 2024 petitioners informed this Court that the matter was compromised between the parties and they filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 to record the compromise between them and to compound the offences.
8. In view of the above submissions and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Narayan (supra), there is no injury on vital part, this Court deems it fit and proper to compound the offences against the petitioners. Further, vide order dated 11.06.2024, this Court directed the parties along with their respective counsel to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, for identification and to submit a report.
9. Pursuant to the above said direction, the parties have appeared before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, who has identified the parties and submitted report, dated 22.06.2024 and the same is placed on record.
10. In view of the above, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 are allowed. Consequently, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.207 of 2022 on the file of the learned IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.6125 of 2024 Hyderabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby quashed subject to the petitioners paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c.No.52188926279, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch (20070), IFSC Code:SBIN0020070, MICR No.500004057) and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, within a period of two (02) weeks from today and file proof of the same before the Registry.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 18.07.2024 NOTE: Registry is directed to upload/supply certified copy of the order only after payment of above said amount.
SAI