Telangana High Court
CRLP/10413/2009 of Shri P. Jagannanadha Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 29 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.PETITION No.10413 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 Petitioners herein filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. stating that the proceedings in Cr.No.409 of 2009 registered by the Station House Officer, Neredmet P.S. on 16.11.2009 for the offences punishable under
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADACRL.PETITION No.10413 OF 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1 Petitioners herein filed this petition under section 482 ofCr.P.C. stating that the proceedings in Cr.No.409 of 2009registered by the Station House Officer, Neredmet P.S. on16.11.2009 for the offences punishable under sections 406 and448 of IPC is nothing but abuse of process of the court. This courtwas pleased to grant interim stay and ordered notice to the privaterespondent.
2 It appears, during the pendency of the present petition, dueto the intervention of the elders, there was a settlement betweenthe parties and as per the said settlement arrived at between theparties, the second respondent at whose instance the presentproceedings are initiated agreed to withdraw the said case.
3 Today parties are present. When questioned the de factocomplainant Mr. P. Suresh Rao submitted that the matter is settledout of court and hence he is not interested in getting the matterprosecuted. He further submitted that he has no objection if thesaid proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
4 Apparently, the petitioners are sales executives of M/s.Nestle India Limited for which the 2[nd] respondent is one of thedistributors. In the light of the said settlement arrived at betweenthe parties and having regard to the fact that the de factocomplainant i.e. 2[nd] respondent herein came forward and stated that he is not interested in getting the matter prosecuted, this courtis of the view that it is not desirable to continue the saidproceedings.
5 Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and theproceedings in Cr.No.409 of 2009 on the file of the Station HouseOfficer, Neredmet P.S. registered against the petitioners for theoffences punishable under sections 406 and 448 of IPC are herebyquashed.
___________
Sri T.G.K, J.
29[th] December 2010Kvsn