Deva Reddy Prasad Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Deva Reddy Prasad Reddy, a GST Inspector, filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in P.R.C.No.105 of 2023, stemming from Cr.No.406 of 2023, pending before the XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. The second respondent, Smt. Gadikota Vanisri, the complainant, also filed applications seeking to compound the offences and record the compromise. The parties jointly submitted a memo stating they had compromised the matter. The Court directed the parties to appear before the High Court Legal Services Committee for identification, which was done, and a report was submitted. The petitioner is the accused No.1, and the second respondent is the complainant.

Held

The Court allowed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024, which were filed to record the compromise between the parties and compound the offences. Consequently, the Criminal Petition was allowed, and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.105 of 2023 in Cr.No.406 of 2023, on the file of the XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, against the petitioner/accused No.1, were quashed. This quashing was made subject to the petitioner paying a total amount of Rs.10,000/-: Rs.5,000/- to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad, and Rs.5,000/- to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, within two weeks from the date of the order, and filing proof of compliance. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where parties have amicably settled their disputes, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice, provided such compromise does not involve serious non-compoundable offences or is against public policy. The Court expressly left no issues undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings in P.R.C.No.105 of 2023, on the file of the XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, against the petitioner/accused No.1, should be quashed in the interest of justice, considering the compromise between the parties? (Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) Arguments for the Petitioner/Accused No.1: The petitioner argued that a compromise had been reached between the parties and sought to quash the proceedings. They relied on the joint memo filed by both parties indicating their settlement. Arguments for the Respondent/Complainant: The second respondent, the complainant, supported the quashing of proceedings and sought permission to compound the offences, also relying on the compromise reached. The State of Telangana, represented by the Public Prosecutor, did not record any specific arguments against the compromise.