Allowed

Padiyala Pavan Sai v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Nov 2020CRLP/4690/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act after the parties filed a joint compromise agreement. The court recorded the compromise and allowed the incidental applications to compound offences.

What did the court decide?

I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 allowed; CRP allowed; Proceedings in C.C. No. 1957/2019 quashed; other pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Padiyala Pavan Sai Vs The state of Telangana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

t.A.NOS.3&40F2020

¶8

IN/ AND

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4690 OF 2020

¶10

l.A.NOS.3&40F2020

¶11

Between:

¶12

Smt Killari Uday Harika, W/o. Padiyala Pavan Sai, Aged about 27 years, Occ Housewife, Caste Naidu, R/o. H. No.3-14 -1161492, Flat No.202, Vishista Sapphire Judge Colony, Sahara 2nd -Qate. lt/ansoorabad, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. .. Petitioner / 2"' Respondent / Defacto -Complainant in both

¶13

And

¶14

'l . Padiyala Pavan Sai, S/o. Naga Masthan Rao Aged about 3'l years, Occ Pvt.Job, Caste Kapu, Represented by its GPA holder Naga lvlasthan Rao R/o. Ramavarappadu,Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P.State Presently residing at Auckland, New Zealand

¶15

P adiyala Naga lvlasthan Rao, S/o. A.Achyutha Rao(late) Aged about 63 years, Occ Retd. Govt Employee, R/o. Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State

¶16

Smt. Padiyala Kanaka Durga Bhavani Kumar, W/o. Padiyala Naga Masthan Rao, Aged about 54 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶17

Smt Parthi Anitha Lakshmi, W/o. Parthi Naga Venkata Satya Siva Durga Prasad Aged about 37 years, Occ Software Employee, at Australia. At Represented by its. GPA holder. Padiyala Naga l/asthan Rao R/o.H.No.143/3, Ballemvariveedi, Ayodhya Enclave, Ramavarapadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District-S21 108. Andhra Pradesh State

¶18

Parthi Naga Venkata Satya Siva Durga Prasad, S/o. Prathi Venkata Narasimha Rao, Aged about 38 years, Occ Software Employee, at Australia, Represented by its. GPA holder.Padiyala Naga Masthan Rao R/o. H.No .1-4313, Ballemvariveedi, Ayodhya Enclave, Ramavarapadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District52l^'108. Andhra Pradesh State.

¶19

Smt Gandham Venkata Sandya, W/o. Naga Satya Ganapathi Rao @ Babi, Aged about 33 years, Occ Housewife, Caste Kapu, Fl/o. Alamur Village, East Godavari District, A.P.State.

¶20

Gandham Naga Satya Ganapathi Rao @ Babi, S/o. Harinadh, Aged about 36 years, Occ Pvt. Employee, Caste Kapu, R/o. Alamur Village, East Godavari District, A.P.State.

¶21

B. Vasa Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Subbaiah (late) Aged about B5 years, Occ Household, R/o. Panduranga Nagar, 4th Lane, Amaravathl Road, Guntur District, A.P.State. .. .. Petitioners/ Accused in both

¶22

The State of Telangana, Represented by its. Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. .. Respondent / Respondent in both

¶23

¶24

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2020

¶25

Petition under Section 320 (6) Rlw.4B2 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Nlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file^petition to compound the offences and quash the proceedings in CC No 1957/2019, on the file of the Hon'ble V- Additional lt/etropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar

¶26

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2020

¶27

Petition under Section 32O (2) R/w. 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No^'1 957/2019, on the file of the Hon'ble V- Addl. Metropolitan [t/agistrate, Cyberabad ,Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar.

¶28

Crl. Petition 4690 of 2020

¶29

Between

¶30

Padiyala Pavan Sai, S/o. Naga Masthan Rao Aged about 31 years, Occ Pvt.Job, Caste Kapu, Represented by its. GPA holder. Naga lVasthan Rao Fl/o. Ramavarappadu,Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P.State Presently residing at Auckland, New Zealand

¶31

Padiyala Naga Masthan Rao, Sio. A.Achyutha Rao(late) Aged about 63 years, Occ Retd. Govt Employee, R/o. Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State

¶32

Smt. Padiyala Kanaka Durga Bhavani Kumar, W/o. Padiyala Naga Masthan Rao, Aged about 54 years, Occ Housewife, Rio. Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶33

Smt Parthi Anitha Lakshmi, Wio. Parthi Naga Venkata Satya Siva Durga Prasad Aged about 37 years, Occ Software Employee, at Australia. At Represented by its. GPA holder. Padiyala Naga Masthan Rao R/o.H.No.143/3, Ballemvariveedi, Ayodhya Enclave, Ramavarapadu, Vi.jayawada, Krishna Districl52'1 108. Andhra Pradesh State

¶34

Parthi Naga Venkata Satya Siva Durga Prasad, S/o. Prathi Venkata Narasimha Rao, Aged about 38 years, Occ Software Employee, at Australia, Represented by its. GPA holder.Padiyala Naga l/asthan Rao R/o. H.N o .1-4313, Ballemvariveedi, Ayodhya Enclave, Ramavarapadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District-521 108. Andhra Pradesh State.

¶35

Smt Gandham Venkata Sandya, W/o. Naga Satya Ganapathi Rao @ Babi, Aged about 33 years, Occ Housewife, Caste Kapu, R/o. Alamur Village, East Godavari District, A.P.State.

¶36

7, Gandham Naga Satya Ganapathi Rao @ Babi, S/o. Harinadh, Aged about 36 years, Occ Pvt. Employee, Caste Kapu, R/o. Alamur Village, East Godavari District, A.P.State.

¶37

Vasa Bhaskar Rao, Sio. Subbaiah (late) Aged about 85 years, Occ Household, R/o. Panduranga Nagar, 4th Lane, Amaravathi Road, Guntur District, A.P.State. ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶38

AND

¶39

The State of Telangana, Represented by its. Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶40

Smt Killari Uday Harika, W/o. Padiyala Pavan Sai, Aged about 27 yearc, Occ Housewife, Caste Naidu, R/o. H.No.3-14-1161492, Flat No.202, Vishista Sapphire Judge Colony, Sahara 2nd Gate, Mansoorabad, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District

¶41

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶42

Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the ft4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may

¶43

be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.195712019, on the file of the Hon'ble V-Additional IVletropolitan lvlaglstrate Cyberabad , Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for the offence U/Sec4$8(A) IPC Sec.3,4 and 6 of D.P.Act.

¶44

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020

¶45

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 of all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioners^jn C.C. No.1 957/201 9, on the file of the Honourable V-Add l.lt/etropolitan l\rlagistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at LB.Nagar for the offence U/Sec.49B(A) IPC Sec.3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act.

¶46

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Ivlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SUDHA RANI CHALLAGULLA ,Advocate for the Petitioners in Crl.Petition and Respondent Nos. 1 to B in l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2020 and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in Crl.Petition and Respondent No. 9 in l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2020 and of Sri G. Krishna Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in Crl.Petition and Petitioner in l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2020

¶47

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶48

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶49

I.A.Nos. 3 AND 4 of 2O2O

¶50

IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.469O OF 2O2O

¶51

COMMON ORDER:

¶52

This Criminal Petition is fiied by the^petitioners ln C.C.No.1957 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dou,ry Prohibition Act, to quash the proceedings in the above said crime.

¶53

During the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.2-de facto complainant filed I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2O2O to record the compromise and to compound the offences in C.C. No. 1957 of 2079.

¶54

Vide order dated 02.I1.2O2O, this Court, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2, directed the parties to appear before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Conrt for their identification and also directed the Registrar (Judicial) to submit a report by 10.11.2O2O. In compliance u''ith the said order dated 02.11.2O2O, the Registrar (Judicial) has submitted his report dated 09. ll.2O2O

¶55

In the report dated O9.11.2O2O of the Registrar (Judicial), it is stated that on oral examination, respondent

¶56

No.2 has stated that she had filed a complaint against the petitioners and that the same was registered as C.C.No.1957 of 2Ol9 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, for the offences under Sections 498-4 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that now she has approached this Court for recording the compromrse.

¶57

The parties herein have filed a joint memo of compromise dated 20.1O.2O2O. The said joint memo of compromise dated 20. IO.2O2O and the report of the Registrar (Judicial) dated 09. 1)..2020 are placed on record.

¶58

In view the said report and also in view of the

¶59

compromise entered between the petitioners and respondent No.2, I.A. Nos.3 and 4 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings 1n C.C.No.1957 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶60

Sd/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPYi/ SECTION OFFICER

¶61

¶62

t. ]!e V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶63

The Station House Officer, Saroornagar Women Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

¶64

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶65

One CC to SRl. SUDHA RANI CHALLAGULLA Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

One cc to Sri G.Krishna Rao, Advocate (OPUC)

¶67

Two CD Copies

¶68

( Along with a copy olJoint memo of compromise )

HIGH COURT

KLJ

DATED:1 011112020

COMMON ORDER

t.A. NOS. 3 AND 4 0F 2020 IN / AND CRLP.No.4690 of 2020

¶74

rlf
,
<br>.,-$
*l
lqo o
lr,
+s'
Il *

¶75

ALLOWINC THE CRL.PETITION.

¶76

sN
BcoP
-} )4 \ tr )-{))-

¶77

t ; : - -' l'r !: J ) Boon"ea t?iTmr f'ELANGAN;\ 096/75 i'ti. -ll'l:, I 'o i.:1.]jD.1,{_t r{i Illn F:r. .... /ol.*^('r 1,1 .!tr r.," ,-ICENSED M \IENKA9TA(P REDD}VENDOR lr,^.'i. : lt tr,^.1l'an l!.,.,t d"t,., r,ri7 ^^{,...", c!o xr:} Ir.3I^{l5:17.017120,1} ,, rrr r,4ortr.r.^A[.t0. Irlar{..t^{l5.Z;.039i?0t,} i.l..l irr.rar.,. ll irFl Ll oio.rt .& r: ll?!fr 'hdi

¶78

¶79

MEMORAN UNDERSTANDING

¶80

' E I This memorandum of understanding is made and executed on this the day 1t December, 2019 at Hyderabad by and between:

¶81

WHEREAS: the marriage was solemnized between the parties to Hindu Rights and Custorns on L6-03-2017 at J.Nagendra Rao Varalakshmi Kalyanavedhika, Nuzvidu, I

¶82

Krlshna D istr ict.

¶83

¶84

K|LLARI UDAY HARIKA, W/o Padiyala lavaxiSai, Aged:27 years, OCC. Housewife, R&: 3-1a-116/a92, Flat No:202, Vishista Sapphire, Judges Colony, Mansoorabad, Sqhara 2"d Gate, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, Telangana State. o Called here-in after called as first^party

i)
\ AL)

a>a'

AND

PADIYALA PAVAN SAl, S/o Padiyala Naga Masthan Rao, Aged 3L^years,Occ: Software Employee at New Zealand. N/o: L-43/3, Ba llemva riveed i, Ayodhya^enclave, Ramavarappadu, Vijyawada 52L708, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶90

Called herein after as second party.

¶91

WHEREAS: after the solem nization , the both parties lived and cohabited together as husband and wife not consummated between the^parties, however, no chlld has been born out of the said wedlock,

¶92

WHEREAS: the marria ge, due to the difference opinion, feelings,^{personalpreferences,} likinB, temperamental attitude, disputes, arose between the^parties and the^parties started living separately from 10-04-2017. The^parties are living separately since DATE OF SEPARATION.

¶93

WHEREAS: the marriage between the parties has irrelatively broken down due to irreconcilable differences in temperament and they have been living separately now

¶94

TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

¶95

1 That both the parties agreed to obtain Mutual Divorce from Family Courtat Hyderabad with own will and consent.

¶96

2 'l hat the second party agreed to Pay Rs.28 lakhs to the first party as alirnony. Out of which the second party paid Rs,14 lakhs as first installment in couple of Demand Drafts, One in favor of the first party i,e. Killari Udaya Harika vide D.D.No.478801, dt.30-11-2019 for Rs.7,00,000/- from the bank lndusind Bank, Nakkapalli, and Demand Draft No.478802, dated,30-11-2019 for Rs.7,00,000/from the bank lndusind Bank, Nakkapalli, for Rs.7,00,000/- in faour of first party's mother named K.Anuradha as requested by the first party.

¶97

3 The Second party agreed to^pay the remaining due amount i.e, Rs.1.4 lakhs in two equal installments one between the MOU and Divorce and the second at the time of Divorce.

¶98

,\t 1..-, tt

¶99

w,k {) t \r'lav*nA,(rs.t_lt AO

¶100

!r.. r,

¶101

4 That the first party received her gold long chain and original documents of her Plot from second party and acknowledged the same today i.e. et-L2-Z}tg.

¶102

that the first party agreed to return the gold ornaments gifted at the time of marriage to the second party are as follows:-

¶103

i^J.).Platinum Bracelet^(2).Gold Engagement ring (3).Gold Pusthelathadu

¶104

(4). Nallapusalu (5).Gold Sutram (6).Necklace (7).Bhuttalu(Earrings) (8). Rlng I^{Kallukadiginappudu)(9).} Watch

¶105

5 lhat the second party agreed to return the gold ornaments gifted at the time of marriage to the first partv.

¶106

(1).Gold Bracelet (2).Gold Engagement Ring (3). Watch (4).5ilver ltems (Kumkum Bharini, Gha nda m Ginne)

¶107

7 That both the parties agreed that they are at Iiberty and freedom to marry any other person and they do not have any objection over the same and they will not -interfere with the life of each other in future.

¶108

8.^'.. That the both parties agreed not to file any petition/civil/crim in a I cases against each other here in after and even any case pending before any court or police by either party prior to the MOU it cannot be enforced and not maintainable.

¶109

a The first Party shall withdraw all the cases filed against the second party and against the parents and relatives of the second party and co-operate for the procedures relating to the withdrawal of the all cases as follows:

¶110

a CC No. 1957/2019 in the court of the llon'ble V-Addl.M.M at LB.Nagar

¶111

i) DVC.No. 35/2OlA in the court of the Hon'ble XXIV-M.M at Hyathnagar c M.C.No.35/2019 in the court of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court at LB.Nagar

¶112

10 The Second Party has have requested his father, Padiyala Naga Masthan Rao S/o Late Achyutha Naidu, Occ. Retd, Govt emloyee , R/o: N/o: 1-43/3, Ballemvariveedi, Ayodhya enclave, Ramavarappadu, Vijyawada 521108 to sign^qp his behalf in this MOU and have authorized it via^Email. lt^has been informed to and accepted by the first^party.

I i I I

, I i a

al<kt

11 This Memorandum of Understanding is signed with free will and consent without any coercion by both the parties in^presence of the following witnesses.

Place: Hyderabad

Date:01-12-2019

First Party g$*

(Killari Udaya Harika)

¶122

<:l r.1.,loi ! { t..1 ;,}

¶123

Second Party

¶124

I /'..,r tl '

¶125

(Padiyala Pavan Sai) 1X351 6,r-9t) Signature of on behalf of his father Padiyal Masthan Rao

¶126

Witnesses:-

¶127

Killari Sri Krishna Prasad

¶128

Smt. Killa ri Anuradha i ti .i i

¶129

M.Hemakumar n,^{t+t|ti)l:"tf ttt} ,y?_t1^{"l).,tl''1i{)}

¶130

P.Kanak Durga Bhavani Kumari P. {^Sga' $r.ts{'d."⁶ q ssso6Lll?

¶131

G.Naga Satya Canapathi Rao Q^n,r 9+e q1o &t88 Sf3

Padiyala Pavan Sai v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padiyala Pavan Sai 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

Nagaraju Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Fatima Nooraiyn Tuba Vs The State of Telangana

Kunam Anjaneyulu Reddy, Guntur and Ano Vs Chittapu Vinila , Kodadala Vinila, Kurnool Dist. and Ano

Nunavath Bhangya Vs The State of Telangana

Ragula Poshalu Vs The State of Telangana

Ajay Khanth and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another