T.Mohan Rao vs Mandhadi Arun
2025 Latest Caselaw 3128 Tel

Telangana High Court

T.Mohan Rao vs Mandhadi Arun on 17 March, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

                  CRIMINAL PETITION No.27 of 2022

ORDER:

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

petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in

C.C.No.2812 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.

Nagar (for short 'trial Court'), pertaining to Crime No.242 of 2020 of P.S.

Nacharam, registered for the offences under Sections 304-A of the Indian

Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3/181, 5/180 and 146 r/w. 196

of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Heard Mr. Abdul Rahim, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of

respondent No.1. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner and the de facto complainant have entered into compromise

and filed a copy of joint memo of compromise in M.V.O.P.No.323 of 2020

on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B. Nagar, wherein, the complainant undertook to take

necessary steps to withdraw the aforesaid C.C., on payment of 2 JS, J

compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The petitioner has paid the entire

compensation amount to the complainant and in proof of the same,

payment receipt is also filed. However, aforesaid C.C. is not withdrawn

by the complainant.

4. In this connection, a reference can be made to the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal 1,

wherein, it is held that when there is a compromise entered by the parties

and when there is a clause with regard to withdrawal of the cases, the

parties have to adhere to the same. In the present case also, the parties

have entered into compromise, in which, there is a clause to the effect

that the 1st respondent-de facto complainant shall withdraw the cases

pending against the petitioner herein, on receipt of compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/-. In spite of such clause and receiving compensation, the

present criminal case is not withdrawn by the complainant, which goes

against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

judgment.

5. In view of the above, the continuation of criminal proceedings

against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of the law, and hence,

the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.

2005(3) SCC 299 3 JS, J

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the

proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.2812 of 2020 on

the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-IV Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 17.03.2025 rev