Smt.Anita Balasubramanyam, ... vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp., And Anr.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3673 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3673 Tel
Judgement Date : 13 July, 2022

Telangana High Court

Smt.Anita Balasubramanyam, ... vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp., And Anr., on 13 July, 2022

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY


                     I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022

                              In/and

                      Crl.P.No.5127 of 2013

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

to quash the proceedings in Crl.MP.No.511 of 2013 in Cr.No.364

of 2012 and in consequential C.C.No.533 of 2013 against the

petitioner/A-4 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

2. During pendency of the Criminal Petition, the parties have

compromised the matter and accordingly, respondent No.2-

de facto complainant has filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 under

Section 320 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. to permit him to enter

into compromise, record the terms of compromise thereof and

compound the offences by quashing the proceedings against

accused in the said crime. Along with the said applications, a

joint memo which is signed by the parties and their counsel,

photographs of the parties and Photostat copies of their Aadhar

Cards came to be filed. In the affidavit filed it has been stated

that respondent No.2 - de facto complainant has filed a complaint

against the petitioners /accused before the Police Station and the

same has been registered as Crime No.364 of 2012 for the

offences under Sections 403, 406 and 420 IPC and police filed

final report stating that the complaint as civil in nature.

Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 filed protest petition

and thereafter aforesaid C.C.was registered.

While so, now the de facto complainant has entered into

compromise with the accused and accordingly approached this

Court for recording the compromise with the petitioners/accused

and they have settled the matter outside the Court and he has no

objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

3. Today, both the parties are present before this Court and

they were identified by their respective counsel. This Court,

when examined, both the parties have stated that at the instance

of the elders and well wishers of both the parties, they have

settled the matter out of the Court and the second respondent

stated that they have settled the matter out of Court and he has no

objection for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another1, the Apex

Court held as under:

"The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court."

5. Taking into consideration the Judgment of the Apex Court

referred to above and the fact of settlement arrived at between the

parties and as all the offences are compoundable, I.A.Nos.1 and 2

of 2022 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is

allowed and the proceedings in Crl.MP.No.511 of 2013 in

Cr.No.364 of 2012 and in consequential C.C.No.533 of 2013 on

the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga

Reddy District, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/A-4.

The petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five

Thousand Only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

Association within ten (10) days from today, and file proof of the