Baseer Ahmed, Hyd vs P.P., Hyd
2022 Latest Caselaw 4221 Tel

       THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

             I.A. No.3 of 2021 in Crl.A. No.1224 of 2015

                               AND

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1224 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-accused

aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.12.2015 passed in S.C. No.217

of 2013 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge

(Mahila Court), Hyderabad, convicting him for the offence under

Section 354 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- in default, to

suffer simple imprisonment for one month, before Amendment

Act, 2013.

2. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant-

accused and the respondent-complainant settled the dispute

amicably and filed I.A No.3 of 2021 seeking permission to

compromise the matter and to compound the offence by recording

the said compromise and to acquit the accused. The parties have

filed a joint memo of compromise along with I.A. No.3 of 2021 Dr.GRR,J Crl.A.No.1224 of 2015

stating that the appellant-accused and the respondent-complainant

settled the dispute between them amicably. The said memo is

placed on record.

3. When the matter is called, the appellant-accused and the

respondent-complainant appeared before the court. They are

identified by their respective counsel. In proof of their identity,

they filed photostat copies of their Aadhar cards and produced the

originals before the court.

4. As seen from the record, the accused is charged for the

offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, but was

convicted for the offence under Section 354 IPC, and he was

acquitted for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511

IPC. The allegation against the accused was that when the victim,

a minor girl, aged about 8 years was proceeding to Arabic tuition

along with her sister, the accused called her by showing chocolate

and when she went inside the house, took her to his bed room and

on her hue and cry, the accused beat her and consequently victim

came out and informed the same to the tuition teacher and he inturn Dr.GRR,J Crl.A.No.1224 of 2015

informed the same to the father of the victim i.e. the complainant

herein.

5. Now the complainant stated that the girl was aged 18

years and she was in Saudi Arabia pursuing her studies and they

were intending to compound the case with the accused and that his

daughter also was not interested in proceeding with the case,

though the accused was convicted by the V Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence

under Section 354 IPC was non-compoundable by virtue of the

amendment in the year 2013.

7. But, considering that the offence took place on

15.09.2011 i.e. prior to the amendment and the same was

compoundable at that time, and the victim and her father are not

intending to proceed with the matter, it is considered fit to permit

the parties to compromise the matter in terms of the compromise

entered into between them.

Dr.GRR,J Crl.A.No.1224 of 2015

8. Accordingly, I.A. No.3 of 2021 is allowed.

Consequently, Crl.A. No.1224 of 2015 is allowed setting aside the

judgment dated 29.12.2015 passed in S.C. No.217 of 2013 on the

file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court),

Hyderabad convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused for the

offence under Section 354 IPC and the appellant-accused is

acquitted for the said offence.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J August 23, 2022 KTL