Allowed

Masabathula Vinay Kumar v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Mar 2015CRLP/1757/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed common petitions seeking quashment of criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute. Following an amicable settlement and joint compromise by the parties, the court invoked the principle from Gian Singh to compound the offence and quash the cases under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

What did the court decide?

Permission accorded to compound the offence and quash proceedings in C.C.No.400 of 2014 filed against the accused.

Masabathula Vinay Kumar Vs State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Crl.P.M.P.No.1903 of 2015 in Crl.P.No.1757 of 2015 and Criminal Petition No.1757 of 2015

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

The defacto complainant and her counsel Sri N. Indrasena Reddy are present. Accused and his counsel Sri P. Devender are present.

¶4

Heard both sides and perused the petition.

¶5

On the report given by de-facto complainant, the Police of Women P.S, Saroornagar, Cyberabad registered Crime No.153 of 2014 and investigated the matter and laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad took cognizance and registered as C.C.No.400 of 2014.

¶6

While-so both parties and their counsel present in Court today and submitted that at the intervention of elders, the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial disputes and now they are proposing to live together peacefully and lead a harmonious life and therefore, the defacto complainant has no objection for quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.400 of 2014 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad and hence permission may be accorded to compound the offence and quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.

¶7

Having regard to the above said submission and in view of the fact that it is a matrimonial matter wherein the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and willing to lead a happy and peaceful life together and no useful purpose will be served even if they are driven to trial since they compromised and following the decision reported in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anothe r^[1] , this petition is allowed and permission is accorded to the parties to compound the offence and proceedings in C.C.No.400 of 2014 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad are hereby quashed in terms of joint compromise memo filed by both parties.

¶8

In the result, both the petitions are accordingly allowed.

¶9

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶11

Date: 10.03.2015 scs

¶12

[1] (2012) 10 SCC 303

Masabathula Vinay Kumar v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masabathula Vinay Kumar v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bageli Musthafa, Vs The State of Telangana

S. Mahaboob Basha, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Kalakoti Niranjan Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sapavath Vijender Vs The State of Telangana

B. Venkata Prasad, Vs K.Damodar Reddy and Another

Mohammed Khan, Vs The State of Telangana