Allowed

Ch. Mahesh Goud and 7 others v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Dec 2020CRLP/4563/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No.04/2020 and a counter FIR lodged between advocates in Sircilla. Upon recording a joint compromise, the Court held the disputes settled and granted the request to compound offences and close proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition and IA Nos. 2, 3, 4 allowed; FIR No.04/2020 (IPC offences) and counter FIR No.05/2020 (SC/ST Act offences) are quashed.

Ch. Mahesh Goud and 7 others Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4563 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ch. N/ahesh Goud, S/o. Bikshapati,

¶8

Gantha Anjaiah, S/o. Chandraiah,

¶9

Gaddam Anjaneyulu, S/o. Lingaiah,

¶10

V.Goverdhan Reddy, S/o. Ramchandra Reddy,

¶11

Bandi Chaitanya, S/o. Ravi,

¶12

6, Ankani Murali, S/o. Yellaiah,

¶13

P.Madhu, S/o. Laxman,

¶14

Penta Srinivas, S/o. Mallaiah,

¶15

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 8 AND

¶16

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of relangana Through P S Sircilla

¶17

.......RE''.NDENT

¶18

Varadha Maruthi, S/o. Ramulu,

¶19

...RESPON DE NT/COM PLAINANT/PETITIONER IN IA NOS.3 AND 4 OF 2O2O

¶20

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 FlR. No.04 of 2020 dated 0210112020 on the file of the P.S. Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District, U/s. 148, 323,324,307 of l.P.C. R/w. 149 l.P.C. filed against the Petitioner herein

¶21

l.A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶22

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 stay all further proceedings in FlR. No.04 of 2020 dated 02.01.2020 on the file of the P.S. Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶23

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2020

¶24

Petition under Section 320(6) R/w. 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders compounding the offences by recording the compromise and quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in FIR No.04/2020 on file of PS Sricilla

¶25

Common C.T. in both lA Nos.2 and 4 of 2020

¶26

l.A. NO: 2OF 2020

¶27

Between:

¶28

Varadha Maruthi, S/o. Ramulu,

¶29

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶30

AND

¶31

Ch. trlahesh Goud, S/o. Bikshapati,

¶32

Gantha Anjaiah, S/o. Chandraiah,

¶33

Gaddam Anjaneyulu, S/o. Lingaiah,

¶34

V.Goverdhan Reddy, S/o. Ramchandra Reddy,

¶35

Bandi Chaitanya, S/o. Ravi,

¶36

b Ankani lt/urali, S/o. Yellaiah, 7 P.Madhu, S/o. Laxman, 8 Penta Srinivas, S/o. Mallaiah,

¶37

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 8

¶38

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana Th rough P.S, Sircilla .......RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT NO,1

¶39

Petition under Section 320(1), (2) Rlw. 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 pass orders compounding the offences by recording the compromise and quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in FIR No.04 of 2O2O on file of PS Sircilla

¶40

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2020

¶41

Petition under Section 320(2) R/w. 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 pass orders compounding the offences by recording the compromise and quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in FIR No.04/2020 on file of PS Sricilla

¶42

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.SURYA SATISH, Advocate for the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.1 to 8 in lA Nos.2 & 4 of 2020 and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.9 In lA Nos.2 & 4 of 2020 and of Sri J.Ramulu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and petitioners in lA Nos.2 & 4 of 2020.

¶43

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶44

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶45

Criminal Petition No.4553 of 2O2O

¶46

ORDER

¶47

'I'hc prescnt Cnmrnal Petition is frled under Section 482 of Cr,P.C. by the peti tioners / accused A.1 to n.8 seeking to quash thc Crimc No.4 o{ 2O2O, clatcd 02.0I.2020 of Sircilla Police Station rr:gist,,rrcd lor thr: olfcnccs pr-rnishabie under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 307 read r,r'ith Section 34 II)C.

¶48

I)uring pendency of the present criminal petition, the parties havc compromiscd thc mattcr .lnd accordingly, the sccond respondcnt. - d.e facto complainant has filed lA Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2O:2O to permit him to compromise and compound the alleged ol'fcnccs bv rccording rhc compromise.

¶49

3, This Court by rts order dated 26.11.2O2O after recor<1ing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioncrs ars rvcll irs sccond rcspondent/ cle facto complainant directed tl-r c p.lrtics to iirppc;lr l>i:hrrr: thc Rr:gistrar (.Judicial-l) ol this Court for thcir idcntificatior) and also clirectc:d the Registrar (.Iudicial-l) to submit a rcport to lhis collrt bv 03. i 2.2020. In compliance of the said dirr:ction oI rlris Court, the Rcgistrar (Judicial-l) has submittcd his rcport on 28. I l.2O2O.

¶50

In thc rcport submitted by the ltegistrar (Judiciali, dated 28. i l.2U2O, il is sriilcd that on oral examination, the 2nd respondcr-rt. has stared that hc has liled a complaint against the petitioners and the same has been registered as Crime No.4 of 2020, datcd 02.Ol.2O2O of Sircilla Police Station for the offences pr-rr-rishablr: r:nricr Scctions 148, 323, 324 and 307 read with

¶51

¶52

¶53

Section 34 IPC and that now he has approached this Court lor recording the compromise.

¶54

The parties herein have filed a Joint Compromise Memo, dated 30.09.2O2O. The said Joint Compromisc Memo datcd 30.O9.2O2O and the report o[ l?cgistrar (Judicial-l) dalcd 28.11.2O2O are placed on the record of this Court.

¶55

In view of the said report and in view of thc compromise entered between the pcrrtioner and thc 2,r(l respondent, I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2O2O are allowed. Consequentlr,, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Crimt: No.4 of 2020, datccl 02.O1.2O2O of Sircilla [)olicc Station rs hcrcby' qr-rtrsirccl. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal pctitror.r shall stand closed.

¶56

Sd/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT ,rRUE COPYil PISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶57

To 1. The Judicial First Class [Vlagistrate, at Sircilla. 2. The station House offief r, Police Station sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District. 3. Two CCs to the Pubtic^prosecutor, High Court to'r tn<i SiiG;i f;tr;;;;;; Hyderabad (OUT)

¶58

One CC to Sri T.Surya Satish, Advocate (OPUC) 5. One CC to Sri J.Ramutu, Advocate (OpUb)

¶59

Two CD Copies .-.^{(along with joint memorandum of compromise)} Kj.

At{Y

HIGH COURT

DATED:1511212020

ORDER

CRLP.No.4563 ot 2020

1liE s 14 /(-
(
I
oo 240E{] 2420
('(r')7
.rl
*

Allowing the Crl.P.

(r, r\rrkani N4rrrali,
S rr. 'clliriah,
rl J7 t'ears, ()cc: Arlv.1.11 t.
'l'ulknpallv Villagc, lvlt r s l;1l11cJ lv{anclill,
Ii ir 1.1 r,r Sircilla Distr lct
7. P. lvladh
S/o. I.axnr 'l
r\8ed 40 vc'a Occ: Ativocate
Ii/o. l2-1-132,
Y. Nagar, Sircil la,
Rajanna Sircilla trlc t
8 Perrta Srinivas
S/o. Iv{allaiah,
Aged 43 years, Occ: Adv ocate,
R/o. 1-7-135, Padma Nag,ar, Sircilla,
Rajanna Sircilla District
...Petitioners/Accused L to 8
AND
1 The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at I-Iyd bad for the
State of Telangana
a.
Through P.S. Sirci
..,Respondent
2 Varadha Marut
S/o. Ramulu,
Age 42 years, : Advocate,
R/o. H.No. 6-77 /L, Shivanagar,
Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District.
...Respondent/ Defacto Complainant
OF OINT EM RAND MOFC MPROMISE
1. This Memorandum of Compromise is executetl between the Defacto
Complainant/Respondent no. 2 herein and the Petitioners/Accused
nos. 1 to g in respect of FIR No. 04 of 2020 dated 02.01.2020 on the filc
of the Police Station Sircilla, Raianrra Sircilla District'
nI
-i(
'\ . .\t
/te
\ _-,/
?, d#'*
:_w)-
)- t5$.t
rr UA-, s $.&;;'l
.44^ry-
t,
\ A

¶70

¶71

't
2
<br>

¶72

2 The Defacto^complainant and the petitioners^{are all advocates by profession}

¶73

and all^{are members} of the Advocates 0ar Association'^Sircilla'

¶74

Ja The^{DefactoComplainant} had made a complaint^{on 02'0L'2020to the Police} Sircilla^{against the Petitioners} herein in view^{of the disputesthatarose} between them'^Basing on the complaint the^{Police StationSircillahad} registered^FIR No. 04 of ?oz1 dated 02.0t,2020^{against the} Petitioners/Accused's 148, 323, 324, 307 Rlw.149^{of l.P.C.}

¶75

4 The Petitioner no. 6/Accused no. 6, lodged a complaint on^02.01.2020 against the^{Defacto Complainant} herein and the same^{was registered as FIR} No, 05 of 2020 dated 02.01.2020 uls,323 R/w. sec. 3^{(1) (r) (s),} 3^{(2) (Va) of} SCs & STs^(POA) Amendment Act 2015.

¶76

Pending both the case and counter case, all the Petitioners and the Defacto

¶77

Complainant, had come to amicable settlement and agreed to withdraw the case and counter case to have cordial relationship among themselves and also for the Bar Association to run^smoothly, in the interest of the advocate community and also in the interest^of the Bar Association and its members.

¶78

Accordingly, the Complainant in tlR^{No. 04} of 2020 had agreed to compound

¶79

the case and similarly the Complainant^{in FIR} No. 05 of 2020 also agreed to

¶80

1.,

¶81

In view of tltc' t'.m1'rr0rrisc, ,1111l scttlcnrcrrt^{agrcccltrpon'} tlre Dcfacto Complainanr in FIlt No.04 of 2020.krcs not wish to p16r6L'ad u'ith the Prosecution alry ftlrther ag.irr51 the Accusctl and ilgrccd t. compouncl the case, sinrilarly the I)efackr Conrplairrarrt in 05 of 2020 also ciocs not H'ish to procecd rvith the prosecution any further and agreecl to compourrcl the case.

¶82

7 ' Both the parties had agreed to fire quash petitions before thc. I{on'bre High Court for getting tl.re matter compronriscd/compou nded and closed in the interest of both the parties. The parties had agrced to appear before the Hon'ble Court and sign all the papers required for closure of tlre casc and counter case.

¶83

All the parties had entered intc the compromise and settled all the tlisputes amicably, peacefully in the interest of one another and also irr the interest of the Advocates^Bar Association, Sircilla. There is no coercion, undue influence or^{force in entering this compromise and all} the parties unequivocally^{declare that they had entereclinto this} compromise out of their^{own free will and consent andto settle all the} disputes to enable all the^{parties to concentrateon tlleir profession and} work in the interest of the^{Bar Association together'}

¶84

g. All the parties hacl signed this^{compromise in the present} of their respective counsel as^{proof of their frce will and conseut and} understandin g reached^{amicablYamong themselves.} ,fi 3) ca.W o r) O-!,A-J"' n 6 ( 2) d4^v-- ) (.lp-ld r\i L-) _."a&il

¶85

¶86

l0' For tllc reastrrrs st,rtt,tl irr llrr,;11 1.1,,,,p.rr),irr11 ;r(firl,rvit, it is tlrr:reforc prai,cd that this llotr'trlc ('our.1 x1nr,1r,. l)l(,,r$(,(l t() pnss orrl(!r\ cornpoun<.ling thc, offctrcr:s lrv lt'coltlitrli ll1'c,nr,r.rrris(, ,r,r(l (lrlash tlrc procr:r:tlin6s ag.rinst lltt' l'ctitioncrs irr l;lll No. 0,1 of 2020,n iile of I'S Sircilla, ancl to pass surh other ordcr(s) as arc tlccnrctl fit anrl pnrpcr.

¶87

IVar ha aru 1 il on ent n fact Co la^2l i/ant

¶88

AC^{h. Mahcsh Coud j} I'etitioncr no.1 /Accused no. 1

¶89

,L..lv
QM
lG an tha Aniaiahl [Caddam Anjaneyulu]
Petitioner no.2,/Accused no. 2 Petitioner no.3/Accused no. 3
I fl
\P}
[V. Coverdhan Reddy] IBandi Chaitanyal
Petitioner no.4/Accused no. 4 Petitioner no. 5/Accused no. 5
\A.--L',-
An niMuralil --/
[p. Macthu,]
Petitioner no.6,/Accused no. 6 Petitioner no. 7/Accused no. 7
enta SrinivasJ
Petitioner rro.8/Accused no, 8
c ac o omplainant/ Co or Petitioners/
Respondent no. 2 Accuscd 1 to $
"')^
ffi G*6L;
C-q^rl fi"r
V"^y^lt S' t{,. 2-

Ch. Mahesh Goud and 7 others v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Mahesh Goud and 7 others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marri Buchi Reddy Vs the State of Ap., and 3 Others

Abdul Sayeed Mohammad Vs The State of Telangana

Chintala Srinivas , Srinu Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.M.Padma Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Varadha Maruthi Vs The State of Telangana

Kyatham Ganga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana