Allowed

Vootukturu Venugopal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Sept 2018CRLP/6842/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants permission to compound offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act upon a voluntary settlement outside the court. The court noted the parties' settled relationship and the case being a fit one for compounding despite the general non-compoundable nature of the IPC offence.

What did the court decide?

Leave to compromise and compound the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was granted.

Vootukturu Venugopal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

I.A.Nos.02 and 03 OF 2018

¶3

IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6842 OF 2018

¶4

ORDER :

¶5

I.A.No.03 of 2018

¶6

This miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 320 (6) of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking leave to compromise the case and compound the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as the matter is settled outside the Court and they entered into compromise and filed joint

¶7

memo to that effect.

¶8

I.A.No.02 of 2018

¶9

Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 /accused Nos.4 and 5 are presently residing at U.S.A., and they are represented by accused No.2/ General Power of Attorney – V.Ram Reddy, petitioner No.2 herein and filed General power of attorney. Hence, Petitioner No.2 is permitted to represent the petitioner Nos.4 and 5/accused Nos.4 and 5.

¶10

Complainant and the petitioners/accused are present and they are identified by their counsel and Public Prosecutor. When the terms and conditions of compromise are explained in vernacular language, they are admitted to be true and correct.

¶11

On enquiry, the parties stated that they settled the issue outside the Court due to intervention of elders and well-wishers

¶12

MSM,J Crl.P_6842_2018

¶13

¶14

and they intend to lead peaceful life. Complainant further stated that the accused agreed to pay Rs.75,00,000/- towards full and final settlement on the date of obtaining divorce by mutual consent.

¶15

The offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. though not compoundable, it can be compounded with the permission of the Court.

¶16

In view of the close relationship between the parties and as the offence committed by the petitioners is not against the society and the compromise is voluntary, I find that it is a fit case to grant permission to compound the offence. Hence, compromise is recorded in terms of the joint memo/compromise petition filed along with the petition. Accordingly, the petitions are ordered.

¶17

Crl.P.No.6842 Of 2018

¶18

In view of the orders passed in I.A.Nos.02 and 03 of 2018, the present petition is allowed. No costs.

¶19

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶20

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶21

24.09.2018 Ksp

Vootukturu Venugopal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vootukturu Venugopal Reddy 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

Gulam Ibrahim Rasheed , Ibraheem Rasheed, Vs The State of Telangana.

Koneru Dhana Koteswara Rao Vs Vemulapalli Kishna Mohan

M.R.Rajender Kumar Vs The State of Telangana And Another

P.Aswini Tejaswi Vs Mr.P.Vivek Raju

Gaurav Bansal Vs the State of Telangana

Govind Bansal Vs State of Telangana