The Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C when the offences are personal in nature and the parties are willing to settle, even if the offences are non-compoundable.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M.S. Achyutha Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the first respondent – de facto complainant; and Mr. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana.

2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) for quashing of offences arising out of C.C.No.320 of 2015 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, culminating in conviction vide the judgment and order dated 10.12.2015 now pending in appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2015 on the file of the learned IX Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

3. Case of the petitioner is that he is a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing Patancheru constituency in the district of Sangareddy having been elected on the ticket of Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) party.

4. First respondent as the de facto complainant had lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 07.05.2014 before the police station BDL Bhanur being FIR No.102 of 2014 registered under Sections 323, 342, 386, 448, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In the complaint it was alleged that one person by the name of Mahesh, a resident of Patancheru constituency and working as Packing Assistant in a company called Varsatile Company had died on 05.05.2014. Alleging foul play, petitioner along with 70 persons had trespassed into the company premises and abused the management in filthy language. It is alleged that he forcibly took a cheque for an amount of Rs.15,00,000-00 for payment to the family of the deceased Mahesh.

5. On completion of investigation police filed charge sheet on 28.02.2015 and taking cognizance of the same a case was registered as C.C.No.320 of 2015 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy where trial was conducted. On conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, delivered the judgment on 10.12.2015. While the petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section 323 IPC, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 342, 386, 447, 504 and 506 IPC.

6. Aggrieved by the above conviction, petitioner preferred appeal before the Court of learned IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2015 and is stated to be presently pending.

7. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed a petition under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2015. It was mentioned that the first respondent i.e. the de facto complainant had approached the Court below and had filed an affidavit dated 12.11.2021 requesting the Court below to compromise the complaint. However, the same was returned by the appellate Court below on the ground that the offences are non-compoundable in nature.

8. It is stated that first respondent is not willing to continue criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

9. Petitioner has contended that the allegations made by the first respondent in FIR No.102 of 2014 on the basis of which he has been convicted and now is in appeal, are personal in nature; there is no infringement to public peace and tranquillity. Therefore, first respondent is not willing to continue with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, first respondent has taken the above stand voluntarily without receiving any kind of pressure or coercion. It is in such circumstances that the present petition has been filed.

10. During the hearing a joint memo dated 26.12.2021 came to be filed by the petitioner and the first respondent. In paragraph No.6 of the memo it is stated that upon intervention of elders and well wishers first respondent i.e., de facto complainant is willing to withdraw the charges / complaint against the petitioner. It is further stated that during the pendency of the appeal before the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Me