JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr.S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr.S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1; and Mr.N.Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2 / de facto complainant.

2. This petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.181 of 2022 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Court, at Nampally, Hyderabad following compromise reached between petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.2 who is the de facto complainant.

3. It appears that de facto complainant had lodged first information before the Banjara Hills Police Station against the petitioners alleging that petitioners in an unlawful assembly had assaulted police personnel on duty as well as damaged the property of Lord Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple on 9/8/2012. It further appears that the aforesaid incident had occurred following leasing out of the land by the Endowments Department to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISCKON) for development of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple.

4. People in the neighbourhood subsequently received notices from the Land Grabbing Court in the year 2010. This was construed, by the neighbouring people, to be at the instance of the ISCKON temple authorities. The incident happened on 9/8/2012 at 09.00 A.M., when petitioners and others came to the temple premises and told the temple authorities to leave the same. Petitioner No.1, at that time, was a Minister. Allegation is that petitioners had obstructed the police personnel while discharging their duties and had forcibly locked the gates of the temple premises confining a women devotee and two priests. This incident also led to stone pelting.

5. On a complaint lodged by the second respondent, Cr.No.745 of 2012 was registered in the Banjara Hills Police Station under Ss. 143, 353, 427, 504, 506 and 342 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.).

6. Police investigated the case and thereafter filed charge sheet under Ss. 143, 353, 427, 504, 506 and 342 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. The Court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Court, at Nampally, Hyderabad took cognizance thereof, following which, C.C.No.181 of 2022 has been registered.

7. It is submitted that at the intervention of elders and well-wishers, petitioners and the second respondent had entered into a compromise and agreed to settle the dispute amicably. Accordingly the matter has been amicably settled.

8. In this connection, I.A.No.3 of 2023 has been filed which details the compromise settlement between the parties. That apart, a joint memo of compromise has also been filed.

9. Sec. 320 Cr.P.C. deals with compounding of offences. It is seen that except Sec. 353 I.P.C., all the other Ss. with which petitioners are charged with, are compoundable. Insofar as Sec. 353 is concerned, it deals with assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. Though, it is not compoundable, it carries a sentence of maximum punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.

10. This Court in the case of Gudem Mahipal Reddy Vs. Sri Potti Chandu Kumar, (2022) Vol.II ALD (Criminal) 148. had allowed a petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., by quashing the criminal proceedings despite conviction of the accused persons. The aforesaid judgment was rendered upon compromise arrived at between the accused and the de facto complainant. In that case the accused was convicted for offences under Sec. 323, 342, 386, 448, 504 and 506 of I.P.C.

11. A five Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kulwinder Singh V. State of Punjab,(2007) 4 CTC 769. was called upon to determine, inter alia, the question whether the High Court has the power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceeding or to allow compounding of offences in cases which have