SYED FAROOQ ALI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugning the order in Crl.M.P.No.1197 of 2017, dated 27.03.2018, by the learned appellate Court-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in the un-numbered Criminal Appeal (S.R.) No. 5787 of 2017, to condone the delay of 113 days ended in dismissal, which is un-numbered appeal impugning the order of the learned Magistrate in D.V.C.No.71 of 2014, dated 30.12.2016, present revision is filed.

(2.) The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the DVC for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The reasons assigned in the application seeking to condone the delay from pages 2 and 3 of the application were that during the D.V.C.No.71 of 2014 proceedings before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the petitioner and respondent No.1, who are wife and husband, compromised the matter and respondent No.1, no other than the son of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and brother respondent No.4, whose wife is respondent No.5, informed respondent Nos.2 to 5 that he would convince his wife/petitioner to see that the case also withdrawn against them and believing the version, they kept quite, however, she did not withdrew pursuant to the assurance and they were set ex parte and filed Crl.M.P.No.157 of 2015 to set aside the ex parte order that was allowed on 13.04.2016 on costs of Rs.2,000/- subject to condition of filing counter in main DVC by next hearing date and they deposited the costs and at that juncture respondent No.1 approached them of no need to contest and his wife agreed for withdrawal. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are old age persons and respondent No.4 and his wife/respondent No.5 are at abroad and they are under impression of respondent No.1 as per assurance will convince his wife to withdraw the case and they need not participate and contest the case and suddenly on 16.05.2017 the Protection Officer came to their house along with the order, dated 30.12.2016 and served copy, from which they came to know of the order against them directing to return the gold ornaments and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and to accommodate DVC petitioner in a portion of the house, thereby they are chosen to impugn the order by filing the appeal in seeking to condone the delay.