Allowed

M.Jayanath Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Dec 2020CRLP/6050/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners for alleged offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Act. The Court quashed the proceedings upon finding that the parties had amicably settled the matter through a joint memo of compromise.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was allowed and the proceedings in Crime No. 157 of 2020 of PS KPHB Colony Police Station dated 01.03.2020 were quashed.

M.Jayanath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6050 0F 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

M.Jayanath Kumar, S/o. Late.Ramulu,

¶8

M.Amrutha, W/o. late.Ramulu

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, PS KPHB Colony, Cyberabad, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶12

....Respondent No.1

¶13

2. Gundu Dheeksha,

¶14

...PET|T|ONER tN t.A.NO.2 0F 2020

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [t/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No. 157 of 2020 of PS KPHB Colony on the file of ll AJCJ -cum-X Additional Metropolitan I/agistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the FIR bearing No.157 of 2020 dated 01-03-2020

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to record the compromise and to compound the offence and also to acquit the petitioners and quash the above said Crime No.1 57 of 2020 ol PS KPHB Colony on the file of ll AJCJ- cum- X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BRAHIVADANDI RAIUESH, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri G.Bhasker Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T. VINOD KUMAR}

¶23

Criminal Petition No.6O50 of^2O2O

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The prcsent Criminal Pelition is liled under^{Section 482 of} (ir,l).C. by the petitioners/accused No. I & 2 seeking to quasl.r thc Crime No.157 ot 2O2O of KI'III:l Colony Police Station^dated 0I .03.2020 (which is pending on the lile of the X Additional Mr:l.ropolitan Magistrate's Court, Kukatpally), for the^,tlfenccs lrunisi:erbk:^{nndcr Scclior.r49il A Il)C :.rnd Scr:tir>ns 3 & 4 o[ Drtu,r]'} I)rohibition Act.

¶26

'). l)uring per-rdency of the present criminal petition, the parl:i<;s lrilrr.: t:ornpronrisccl thi: nratl.or and accordingly, l.he resl)onclcnt No.2 I de r{rcto complarnant has lilcd IA No.2 oi 2020 seel<ing perrnission of this court to compromise the matter and to quasl'r thc s:ricl crime.

¶27

'l'his Court by its order dated 27 .Il.'2O2O after recording thc submissions made by the learncd counsel for the petitioners as u,r:li as sccond resporrdent/ de facto complainant directed the partics Io appc.rr bclirrt: Lhc Rcgi:itrar (Judicial-l) ol this Court. for their ident.ification and also direcLed thc ltegisLrar (..luclicial-l) to srrbmit a report by 07.12.2O2O. ln compliance of the said directiorr oi this Court, thc Rcgrstrar (Juclic:ir-rl-l) iras submitted lris reporr da tccl 02 . 12 .2O2O .

¶28

In the report subrnittcd by rhe l?egistrar (Jurticial-l), ri:rtr:Li 0.2.12..).O),O, it is stlrtcil lltitt on oral t:xarnination, the 2,r(l rcspondent. has stillccl thal. sho ttiL:; Iilcd a complaint against thc pc:titioners and the same has bccn rcgistered as Crime No.157 oi' 2a2O ol KI,IIU Colonv i)olice Station lor the oflences pr,rrrishatbJc

¶29

¶30

undcr Section .+9g-A ilrc and Scctions 3 & .1 <;f D.wry rjrohibiiiorr Act ancj that no*, shc has approached thrs Court ibr rer:or.ding thc comproatisc,

¶31

D. The parties herein have liled a Joint Memo o1. Compronrisc, dated 30. tO.2O2O.^.l.he said Joint Memo of Compromise dated 30,10.2020 and thc reporr of Rcgisrrar (Judicial,t) dared 02.12.2020 are placed on the record of this Court.

¶32

ln vielr, of the said rcport and in vierv of thc compromisc entcred betu,een the pc:Litior-rcrs and thc 2,,,r rcspondcnt, LA,No.2 oI 2O2O is allor,ved. Conscquentlv, thc Crir-nin:rl Pctttion is allo,"r,r:rl anr.1 lho procecdlngs in Crime No.157 of 2O2O of I(pllB Color-rv l)olicc Station datcd 01.03.2020, which is pending on the file o1'X Addilional N4etropolitarn N4agisrratc, Kukatpallv, arc hcre b.u<1uashecl. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pcndrng in rhis r:rirr:irr:ri petjtion shall srand closcd.

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

Sd/-N,CHANDRASEKHAR ASSISTANT REG R SECTION OFFICER

¶35

¶36

The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- X Additional lvletropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

¶37

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶38

One CC to Sri Brahmadandi Ramesh, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶39

One CC to Sri G.Bhasker Reddy, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶40

Two CD Copies

¶41

(along with^joint memo filed by the petitioners and 2nd respondent) Kj.

HIGH^COURT

DATED:091'12/2020

ORDER

CRLP.No.6050^{of 2020}

¶46

sh
r{-(
I DEC 2m
p
^*

¶47

ALLOWING THE CRL.P.

¶48

w I,D

¶49

IN IHE HIGH COURT OF JL,o,.olxirJlHyDERABAD FoR rHE srArE oF cRt.P.NO. l" to oF 2o2o

¶50

(crime No. 157 of 2020rr 1, 1ir',iiitn,^{on ,nu file or il Arct} cuM x Additional Metropolita n Magistrate, *rtriolirv, Cyberabad)

¶51

Between :

¶52

1. M.Jayanath Kumar, S/o. Late.Ramulu, Aged about.28^years, Occ. Unemployed, R/o. H.No. 23-4-745, Sultan shahi, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶53

2l M.Amrutha, W/o. late.Ramulu. Aged about. 55 Yrs, Occ. Govt.Employee, R/o. H.No. 23-4-L45, Sultan shahi, Charminar, Hyderabad.

¶54

.....Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 AI{D

¶55

The State of Telangana., PS KPHB Colony, Cyberabad, Represented through the Publir: Prosecutor Of High Court, Hyderabad.

¶56

..... Respondent. No.1/Com pla inant

¶57

¶58

2l Smt. GundHD.eeksha, W/o. M.Jayanth Kumar, Aged about. 25 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. t6-3-v/25t, Plot No.251, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶59

.... Respondent.No.2/ Defacto-Complainant

¶60

JOINT MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS AND 2NO RESPONDENT 1. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent who is the defacto- complainant in Crime No. 157 of 2020 of PS KPHB Colony on the file of ll AJCJ CUM X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad alleged under Section a98(A) of IPC and under sections 3 &⁴ of^DP Act, at the^instance of^r

¶61

elders and^{well wishershassettled the abovecase amicablyfor the alleged} offences. The^{petitioners and the defacto-complainantwho is the} No.2 herein are^{also filing affidavits to that effect'}

¶62

"respondent Z. The petitioners and^{the 2nd respondent submitthat in this regardthe} matter has been settled at^{the instanceof elders and well wishers. we also} submit that in this regard^the above^{said matterhas beensettledout of the}

¶63

court amicably.

¶64

ln view of the compromise, the proceedings of the said criminal case may be quashed by allowing the petition by recording the terms of the compromlse.

¶65

Hence this Joint Memo.

¶66

Date: 50 -10-2020 Place : Hyderabad.

¶67

rt [^{$l-]^,)^,-} Petitioner No.1 Petitioner No.2 Defacto Complainant

¶68

B.tl""t'^$'g @Counsel for the Petitione r Counsel for the Respondent No.2

M.Jayanath Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jayanath Kumar 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

Mir Johan Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Atul Kataria Vs The State of Telangana

Budidha Karthik Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Aleem Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

Kumari Rajani Vs The State of Telangana

Bhavin Kirtikumar Mehta Vs The State of Telangana