Allowed

Smt. Ameena Begum v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Jul 2015CRLP/3293/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed criminal petitions and quashed proceedings where petitioners paid a settlement amount of Rs. 18 lakhs. While offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable, the court compounded other offences citing sub service of justice after amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to compound offences. Criminal petitions allowed. Proceedings quashed. Bail bonds cancelled.

Smt. Ameena Begum Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

Crl.P.M.P.No.7422 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.3293 of 2015, Crl.P.M.P.No.7423 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.6571 of 2015 & Crl.P.M.P.No.7421 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.6727 of 2015

¶3

Crl.P.No.3293 of 2015

¶4

Between : Smt.Ameena Begum W/o.Sayed Anwar Pasha

¶5

and another.

¶6

… Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another. DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 29.07.2015

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶11

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

¶13

2. Whether the copies of judgment may Yes/No be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

¶14

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship Yes/No wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

¶15

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶16

Crl.P.M.P.No.7422 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.3293 of 2015, Crl.P.M.P.No.7423 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.6571 of 2015 & Crl.P.M.P.No.7421 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.6727 of 2015

¶17

COMMON ORDER :

¶18

Crl.P.Nos.3293 and 6727 are arising out of C.C.No.331 of 2014 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3, which are outcome of the report of the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant in Crime No.278 of 2013 of Women Police Station, CCS, and the police filed final report and that was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offences supra.

¶19

2. Crl.P.No.6571 of 2015 is arising out of C.C.No.1102 of 2014 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, for the offences under Sections 406 and 506 read with 34 IPC, which is outcome of report of the 2^nd respondent, selfsame person, in Crime No.289 of 2013 of Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad District, against the accused persons supra.

¶20

3. Both parties in these petitions filed joint memos along with the affidavits of the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant stating that they

¶21

amicably settled their claim outside the Court and as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.07.2015, the petitioners in all the petitions agreed to pay an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) and paid vide two demand drafts therein and copy of the demand drafts are enclosed, each for Rs.6,00,000/- and another sum of Rs.6,00,000/- is to be paid by way of demand draft while settling the D.V.C. case soon and the affidavit stated that for her welfare, interest and also for her well being, the settlement arrived and hence sought for compounding.

¶22

4. Having heard the parties, permission is thereby accorded as the parties stated that they have amicably settled the matter to purchase peace. Accordingly, the offences are compounded though the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act not compoundable and leave the other offences are compoundable and to sub-serve the ends of justice, at the instance of the de facto complainant since present with the petitioners/A.1 and A.3.

¶23

5. Accordingly, Crl.P.M.P.Nos.7422, 7423 and 7421 of 2015 are allowed. Consequently, the above three criminal petitions are allowed and all the proceedings relating to C.C.No.331 of 2014 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and C.C.No.1102 of 2014 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, are quashed against the petitioners therein. The bail bonds of the petitioners/A.1 to A.3, if any, shall stand cancelled.

¶24

6. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

¶26

29^th July 2015

¶27

mar

Smt. Ameena Begum v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ameena Begum v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Jahangir Ali , Saleem Vs Mr. Syed Mohiuddin Alias Musthak Bhai

Kanagala Nagabhushanam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yallabandi Sarparani, M.A. B.Ed., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Md. Farooq Shareef Vs Sri. Sabavath Laxman

Sri. Chintakunta Ramulu Vs Smt. Chintakunta Suguna

Dr. Javvaji Kotinagaiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh