Allowed

Budidha Karthik v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Dec 2020CRLP/2399/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Sections 482 and 320 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings registered under domestic violence and dowry laws. The proceedings were quashed after the parties executed a compromise and a Joint Memorandum of Understanding.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; Proceedings under CC No. 1335 of 2020 against Accused Nos. 1 to 5 quashed.

Budidha Karthik Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE EJGHTH DAY OF^DECEI,{BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2399 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Budidha Karthik, S/o, Venkateshwarlu Budidha, aged about 30^years, actScientist, R/o. 30, Wattle Road, Harlow, ESSEX, and Ctr/17 OGE, U.K.

¶8

Smt. Budidha Vara Lakshmi, W/o. Venkateshwarlu Budidha, age- 57 years, occ- House wife. r/o. 30, Wattle Road, Harlow, ESSEX. and CM17 OGE. U.K.

¶9

Budidha Venkateshwarlu, S/o Rajaiah Age- 60 years, occ- Employee. r/o U.K.

¶10

Smt. Budidha Bindhu Hasini, W/o Aditya. age- 26 years, occ- employee R:/o. Connecticut, USA

¶11

5, Dubbaka Kumar, S/o. Rajaiah Aged 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Vardhannapet Village and Mandal Warangal District.

¶12

..PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 1 to 5

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. .. Respondent/ Complainant

¶15

Smt. Budidha Rachana, W/o. Budidha Karthik, age- 24 yearc, occ- House wife, 5oooo74 R/o. H. No. 8-15-32, Sadguru Nagar Colony, =t'ol3t!'Jo,?i,tit'oL.8, Nagar, Hyderabad

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 1335 o'f 2020 on the file of Hon'ble Court of V Additional Metropolitan lvlagistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar against the petitioner / accused Nos. 1 to 5.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of CC No. 1335 of 2020 on the file of Hon'ble Court of V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the N/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners accused no.i to 5 jn CC No. 1335 of 2O2O on the file of Hon'ble Court of V Addl. Metropolitan N,4agistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar, pending disposal of main criminal petition.

¶21

f.A. NO: 3 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under Section 320 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner no.^.1/ accused no.1 to appear on behalf of the petltioners No,2 to 4 / accused no.2 lo 4 before this Hon'ble Court by recording the compromise in the above Criminal petition No. 2399 of 2020 .

¶23

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2020

¶24

Petition under Section 320 (6) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition,the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner No.1 to appear on behalf of the petitioners No.2 to 5 /Accused No.2 to 5 before this Hon'ble Court by recording the compromise in the above CrlP and to pass

¶25

l.A. NO: 5 OF 2020

¶26

Between:

¶27

Smt. Budidha Rachana, Wo. Budidha Karthik, age- 24 years, occ- House wife, FVo. H. No. B-15-32, Sadguru Nagar Colony, L.B, Nagar, Rachakonda District.

¶28

.. Petitioner / Respondent No. 2

¶29

And

¶30

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. .. RespondenU Respondent

¶31

Budidha Karthik, S/o, Venkateshwarlu Budidha, aged about 30 years, actScientist, R/o.30, Wattle Road, Harlow, ESSEX, and CM17 OGE, U.K.

¶32

Smt. Budidha Vara Lakshmi, W/o. Venkateshwarlu Budidha, age- 57 years, occ- House wife. r/o. 30, Wattle Road, Harlow, ESSEX. and CIV17 OGE, U.K.

¶33

Budidha Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Rajaiah Age- 60 years, occ- Employee. r/o. U.K,

¶34

Sml. Budidha Bindhu Hasini, W/o Aditya. age- 26^years, occ- employee R/o. Connecticut, USA

¶35

Dubbaka Kumar, S/o. Rajaiah Aged 49^years, Occ.^{Business,R/o.} Vardhannapet Village and l\rlandal Warangal District.

¶36

Petition under Section 320 (2) of^{Cr.P.C praying that in the} circumstances stated in the I,4emorandum^{of Groundsof CriminalPetition,the} High Court may be^pleased to^record the^{compromiseand quashthe} proceedings in CC No.133512020 on the file of court^{of the V Addl.} It4etropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad^{at L B Nagar and to pass}

¶37

These Petitions coming on^{forhearing, upon perusingthe} Memorandum of Grounds of Criminat^{Petition and upon hearingthe arguments} of Sri AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY ,Advocate^{for the Petitionerin Crl. Petition} and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5^{in l.A. No. 5 of 2020and the PublicProsecutor} (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1^{in both petitionsand of SriBosu} Babu Advocate for the^{Respondent No. 2 in Crl.Petitionand Petitionerin l.A.} No. 5 of 2020

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

,I'HE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶40

Crirnirral Petition No.2399 of^2O2O

¶41

OI{Dtr11

¶42

'1'lrc prcscrrt (,':'inriri:rl I)clitiott is lilctl r"trldt:r Sccliol.t '1E2 r;,1t-r l'( i;,, iirt n' tii:()n(is. \'i)o lltc illril-\t ti :ts ttc:cl-lstlrl Nos.1 irl^.r ilr^(.(. No 1.1.1., ol -?(r.2() r,ir tirc lilc ol V r\cldition;rMclr,tpr.rlitar.t N'l:rgistraLc. Cvl;cral>a<1 :rt I-.B. N:lg.tr, rccorrlt:cl ort tl'rc basis ol th,r Crrrnc No,329 ol 20l9 on the file of Women Police St:,rtiort, Sll r'oo r'n i,iga r'. Rzrr:hal<ortcli,t Clornnrissoncrate, rcgistcred for thc ol'le nccs pur.iish:.rlllo undcr Sections 498-A, 323, 42O and lj04 IPC arrd Sections 3 & 4 of l)owry Prohibition Act to quash the llr'o:-^(rcdings ir-t tl'rr-' i,ibovr: said C.C.

¶43

I)L;ring p()n(lcncv of the prcscnr criminal potition, Lhc parties Iur,.,r,: cornprorr.rist'cl lhc n'lattcr and zrccordingl-r,, tl.rc s.'a ')n(1 i{ 5r,r)r(l l'ri .' (le i.t( it) r :^, r r r I 1^{I| ;r ir r r'tr .t Ihas lilrtrl IANr,.5 r.ri} -10.,'l^r, l', ol(l 1i1(^{(,r|LI)rr)rlri:,i} rliltl l,r^(irr:rslr llr( L:r'irlre No.3.2(l .)l l)i(j ;-('rlrsl( r('.-l^jirr- Iir slricl ali,.'qc'rl ollirncr:s.

¶44

lirs t oln L lrr its o:rlL r cl:rlr:ci 10. I 1.20.20 al'[t'r lccorrliriu lhr' :iLil)niissrons n.Ircl. lr. llrt lL:lr-nt.rl ('oLlllsci Iitr tltc pCf iLiorftls 1.1 s '.r'r ll irs st-'r'orrcl icspr)r)d('r'rt/'(/e /aclo complainant clirc ctcrrl lh,t lriirtics^{lo ..tppirar l;c:lort: the Rcgistrar'(Judicial-l) o1'Ihis Courl ft)r} tlrcir id<:ntiiic:rtiorr :i:td aiso rlirecir:d lhc Ilcgistr-ar (.Judicieil,l) ttr submit :r re porl . lr-t conlplianr:c ol' t.hc said direction of this Court, lhc irzrrt ir-'s havc appeare d belbrc: the Registrar (Jrrdicial I) on .1",'.^{t ',} .,.t)2O rrncl r>n lh.' ,cr)' s,jl n1c da_v, thc Ilegistrar (Jurdiciai,l) irlrs sL rltrrr iiiccl it is r-i,1tori

¶45

l. Irr lllc r'cl)orl srrbntittcd b.r rhr: Ilegistrar (Judicrtl-i1 rirtL l I i i't )r.)2t,t, rl i:i sitr.1(.i(l titirt Or.t Or-al r,xzLmin:ttii)n. th(. ),,

¶46

¶47

rcsponcicnL has stated Lhat shc l-ras iilcd a cornpl:iinI aq:tirrsL thr: pct.itioners and the same has becn rcgistcrcd as C.C. No.1335 ol 2O2A on t1'rc l'iic o1-V Aciclition:rI \1r'tnrpolilrrn \laqislal('. Cr'ltt:ral::rd itt l,.il. Nacar lor tlrc olli'nr ls rr r r r r i s lr r i I r ll Lln.llr Section:; 498-L, 323, 420 zurcl 50.1 IPC :rncl Sc:< tir>ns 3 t<sup>.1 oli)c>u'r-r' I)rohibition Act to tlui,rsh thc procccclinqs in tlrc abovc slrici C.C. anC that no$'shc has appro:r<:lrcrl this^(,orrr-i lirr rcc:orclinq rlir, com promise.

¶48

'lJre parties herein have filcd a Joint Memorzrnclum ol' Undersl.anding, dated 13.10.2020.^'l'hc sarcl Mcmorzrrrdun'r ol Understanding and the report of [?cgistrar (Judicial-l) cl;ttctl 27 .11.2O2O are placed on thc re cord of this Cor-rrt.

¶49

lrL vierl, ol thc s:rid rcport zlnd in vtcrl r>1' tht' cltnprorTiisc cntcred bi:Lurcen the pctitionr:rs and thc 2"'l rcspOnclttil. i.1 .No. li o1' l!(.)20 is allorvcd. Conscclue n t.h.', thc Cruninzrl [)ctitiorr is iLLlorr rrcl and thc proccr:dings C.(1. No. I331 ol' .2(.r0 otr tlrc lilt ol / i\dtlirronai M<:Lropolitatn 1\4:igistrirtc. Clbt'i.illli,rl .ll I..ll. \trs1;tr,^ti, lrcrcll qr.rirshecl. MisccllirneoLts llctilions. il irrrr.^pcrtdirtg ill^iitls i:rinriniLi l)ctilion slrirll st:rntl t^krsi:cl

¶50

Sd/-M,M JULA ASSISTA^NTR ISTRAR ,TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶51

¶52

1H:X#:ll'fi :iLYAT,!$:SiU'Hg3:"''i".,I:;'F:ft^{:""!l;f;I''n*}

¶53

,. ,-*31{;.x3ruan:*fftli'lgth^{co"t tor the state or reransana at}

¶54

BIt%8,?l tRr.^{AJAY KUMAR MADrsErrY AdvocateIoPUC]}

¶55

5.^{One CC to SriBosu Babu' Advocate (OPUC)}

¶56

Two^CDCoPies

¶57

( along^{with a coPYof joint memo} of comPromise) r\

HIGH COURT

TVKJ

DATED:0811212020

ORDER

CRLP.No.2399 of 2020

<br>t: 14 ,t
(
q n
o
(.) 11DEC2m a

PAT C

¶64

Allorving the Crl.Petition

¶65

¶66

**,

¶67

MEMORANDUM OF CIIL.MISC, PETITION

¶68

(rrrLED u/SECTION 320 OF CR.P.C)

¶69

IN TI{E HIGH CO{.JIrT OF TUDICATURE OF TILANGANA AT :: I{YDERABAD

¶70

Lr.. \c. Of 2020

¶71

ln Crinrinai Petition No" 2399 of 2O2O

¶72

E eh,,ye en:-

¶73

'1. Budidha lGrrhik, 5/o. Venkateshwariu tsudidha, aged about 3L) yeari, occ: Sciei:1iJt, Vo.^3C. Watti,.: iloac.^I iarlow. E55EX. and Ci.'il7 OC[. U.l(

¶74

Smt, Budicit',a Vai'a Lakshrni, Wo. Ven kateshr,,^,,arlu Budidha, age: 57^years, occ: l-ir,rL:se wife, r/o. 30, Wattle Road, l-tariorar, E55EX. and CMl7 OC,i. U.K.

¶75

Budidha Venkateshr,varlu, 5/o. llajaiah Age: 60 yec: s, occ:^{-Er:,p:,,ryc.,.} r/o, U.K.

¶76

Smt. Budidha Bindhu tlasini, W/o Aditya, age: 26 yearJ, oc.: employee R/o. Connedicut, USA

¶77

Dubbaka Kumar,5/o. Ra.jaiah Aged 49 years, Occ. Ili.rsilrerJ, Vo. Vardhannapet Village and Mandai Warangal District

¶78

.... Petitioners/Accused No.l to 5 AND L The State oi -)-eia ng:rna Rep. by its Fr:i.:iic i'i<.:r,. i.i:tri" High Cor-rrt of :elang.irra ii I-iyc1.)i'abad

¶79

.... R espondent/Conrpia ina nt Budidha Karthik,Karthik, Colcnv, Responoent/defacto complainant ()]NT NT!:UO

¶80

srnt. tsudi.iir,: Raci::na, Wc. Budidha Karthik,Karthik, age; 24^{yeais. r'L:(; :-li j;rsr:} wil'c. R./o. H. No. 8.'.'...3;,,.ri:ci6r.:ru Nagar Colcnv, 1,.B. Na3ar, i :,. r':l:i.: ,.r ,,1)0{,\074.

¶81

[t is sL:b,:ritr,:ti thrt thc iretitioners hereur filed the above Quash Petition seeking to e'-::.r.ir tirt' ;.iruriei'riiiigs in C(l Nc. 11135 of 2020 on the file of court of the V Addjtiorr;il lviL.r li.,po ii izur 'l;rgrJjtra[e, Cyberabad at LB Nagar registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 43O, 5O4 IPC wherein the Petitioners are figured as Accused 1 to 57 questioning the said proceedingr in CC No. 1335 of 2020, the Petitioners / accused no.l to 5 herein filed this quash Petition and seeking indulgence of this i'iorr'ble Court to invoke its inherent^jurisdiction U/sec.482 of Cr,P.C and tiic ranre ir conding.

¶82

ti i.

¶83

It is submitted that at the interr'(,ne of L,'oli iire^i.r; ri,' e lr ii:;.:r ancl.^-r'veii vrishes, al1 the parties including the De-facto i^.rtrlirrr, .rt'., :),,' ! .,..ie to a conclusion to settle the disputes bv^''1'av oi cr1t,-'ijr'.t;^{(:o:r'ri-r:.\irlrr,l} rl;::1.'il {)1j.1(1.2[i20 and the case is before the Hon'ble Courts incluciing, thc al;ovo^(. iiurinal^<:ase pending in proceedings in CC No. 7335120211. Further thr:^{petitir;rLr:rs} and the defacto complainant are compromised try executir-rll at1 ioini affid;rvit si5;ned by the petitioners and the defacto complainant is also f^jleli hr:ie'"r'ith for kind perusai of tfus Hon'ble Court.

¶84

Hence this joint memo. Hyderabad, Date : 21 .1C.2024 .t L L- t Courrsel for the\petitioneru ( B :.1 ici ha Kai'ihii< )

¶85

IB,r.li.ii :, ,:,'^{- rr'.'l} ';

¶86

ii,..:^l: , ., ,.' ,.

¶87

l9t,rrlll',r illl,l :^:iai '^;r

¶88

(Dubbar.a Kutre:)

¶89

Y ,cou for the respondent no.2 ( Budidha Rachana)

Budidha Karthik v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budidha Karthik 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

Imran Quraishi Vs The State of Telangana

Montu Bandari Vs State of Telagnana

Mujajhid Vs Md.yousuff

Mir Johan Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Atul Kataria Vs The State of Telangana

Budidha Karthik and 2 others Vs The State of Telanana