Telangana High Court

CRLP/15878/2013 of Shri Rupenaguntla Venkata Ramana Vs State of A.P., on 31 December 2013

SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Crl.P.No. 15878 of 2013 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing the proceedings in DVC No. 12 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram. A complaint has been filed under

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMARCrl.P.No. 15878 of 2013

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seekingquashing the proceedings in DVC No. 12 of 2013 on the file of thelearned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram. A complaint hasbeen filed under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Domestic ViolenceAct, 2005.

Along with the present application, the petitioners filedCrl.P.M.P.No.14303 of 2013 seeking permission of the Court to quashthe case in DVC No.12 of 2013.

The parties are present today and were identified by theirrespective counsel. When examined, the 2[nd] respondent stated that shehas settled the dispute with the accused and is not interested in pursuingthe matter. She further stated that at the instance of elders and well-wishers, they have settled the matter out of Court.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another[[1]], the ApexCourt held that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, thepossibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminalproceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice andextreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal casedespite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in GIAN SINGH (supra)and taking into consideration the fact of compromise arrived at betweenthe parties, this Court is of the view that continuation of theinvestigation against the petitioners is being an abuse of process of lawas the chances of conviction would be remote and bleak. It is not in dispute that the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial innature and the public at large are not affected. In view of the same, therespondent can be permitted to compound the offence and theproceedings against the petitioners can be terminated.

Accordingly, Crl.P.M.P.No.14303 of 2013 is ordered. Consequently, the Criminal Petition filed for quashing the proceedingsagainst the petitioners in DVC.No.12 of 2013 on the file of the learnedJudicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram is allowed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shallstand closed.

__________________________________

JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR.

Date : 31.12.2013Gvl

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

Crl.P.No. 15878 of 2013

Date : 31-12-2013

Gvl

[1](2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

Page 1 of 1

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead