Allowed

Kumari Rajani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Dec 2020CRLP/6154/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition filed to quash proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC. The Court recorded a compromise entered between the accused petitioners and the complainant, who was the landowner in a land dispute, and quashed the crime number.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the proceedings in Crime No. 744 of 2019 were quashed.

Kumari Rajani Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO: 6154 0F 2020

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

Kumari Rajani, D/o. Jasraj Garnbeer @ Hansraj Garnbeer, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business.

¶8

Swaraj Kumar, S/o. J. Jasra.j Gambeer Hansraj Garnbeer, Aged about 69 years, Occ, Business.

¶9

Harish Kumar, S/o. J. Jasraj Gambeer @ Hansraj Garnbeer, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Business.

¶10

Tejraj, S/o. J. Jasraj Gambeer @ Hansraj Garnbeer,^{Agedabout 58 years,Occ} Business.

¶11

Yesuraj @ Yeshraj, S/o. Swarai^{Kuma, Aged about 44 years'Occ.Business (AII} are R/o Ul ruo. z-+-g++11,^{Kachiguda, Hyderabad, TelanganaState)}

¶12

... Petitioner/Accused^{Nos.1to 5}

¶13

AND

¶14

l.TheStateofTelangana,representedbyPublicProsecutor,HighCourtforthe State of^Telangana.

¶15

Banothu Nagamma @^{Nagamani' W/o Late Bikku' aged.about38 years' Occ'}

¶16

Lro"rt, niolt-o-+:sicnrltanyapuri, Ranga Reddy District'

¶17

... ResPondenUC^om Plainant

¶18

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P'Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition'theHighCourtmaybepleased to quash the^{FIR in CrimeNo 744 of 2019 daled2T-12-20'19 on file of Police} Station Chaitanayapuri^{against the Petitioner/AccusedNo 1 to 5'}

¶19

Common C.T.^{in l.A.Nos"tand 2 of 2020}

¶20

Between:

¶21

Banothu Naqamma @^{Nagamani' W/o Late Bikku' aged about 38 years' Occ'} I;#J;, ri/,;"0-+Sslcr,rriinvapuri'^Ranga i:.99,?i'l'i"r)reracto comprainant

¶22

AND

¶23

Kumari Rajani,^{Dio. Jasraj Garnbeer @ Hansraj Garnbeer' Aged about54 years'} 2. 3'i?,rtl1ill,i??,^{S/o J. Jasrai Gambeer Hansraj Garnbeer'Ased about 6e vears'} 3 Slirrri',l,il?,^{S/o J Jasral Gambeer@ Hansraj Garnbeer. Ased about63} 4 +:?6 8ff 3'r:":?jiorroeer^{@ Hansral Garnbeer'Ased about58 vears'occ} Business' ^ nraiKuma' Aqed about 44 years occ^{Business( All}

¶24

5 Yesurai @^{Yeshral, sto>vt} ;;"Hfi^{u* r.lJ")-alsaalr xi.[iouoaHvd,erabadTelanoanaState)}

¶25

6 rhe state^{of relangana r.;;;JX;;[i 61,"pi'rriptteiutor'High courtfor the} State of Telangana ...^{petitione rlAccusedNos.1to 5}

¶26

r.A. NO: 10F²⁰

¶27

Petition under^{Section 320 (6) Readwith 482 of Cr'P C prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the Memorandumof Groundsof Criminal Petition'the High} Court may^{be pleased to permit the Petitionersand respondents No Al to A5} compound the^{offence by recording compromisein the interest of iustice'}

¶28

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020

¶29

PetitionunderSection32o(2)Readwith4B2ofCr.P'Cprayingthatinthe circumstances statedⁱⁿ the^{Affidavit and Joint Memo of Compromise flled therewith,} the High court may be^pleased lo^{recordthe compromise between petitionersand} respondents by recording compromise^{in the interestof justice.}

¶30

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Rana Kamalasan, A.jay Kumar [,4adisetty, Advocate for Petitioners in Criminal Petition and Respondents 1 to 5 in l.A.No.2 oI 2020 and Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.^'1 in Criminal Petition and Petitioner No.6 in l.A.No.2 oI 2020 and of Sri A Saibaba Yadav, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition and Petitioner in l.A.No.2 of 2020.

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

¶33

¶34

Crirn inal Pe tition N o.6154 f 20

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD XUMAR

¶36

0itDEtl

¶37

'l'ltr' 1tr.sr..l .r;,ti.irl I)r.tirio, is f.ilr.cl lr,ci.r. -Sr:c:ti.rr -lB.l .l ( t.l'.( . l,\ til(. .), tl.i,,n( rs ir(\ L.(.(l ,,. | .,, .i st t.l<n:S tr, ,1r.:rslr ll (lrinic No.7.1-l ol 2O lg oi Olr:ritanviill-tr.i l)olicc SL:rLiorr. llrrcl*rl<oaclri c.r'rrr.rissiorrc'atc, c.r:rtr:ri 27.r2.2n19 rcgrstcre:rL lirr- lht: ollirri.r:s pu'rishablc r:ncicr SccLiorrs l2O-Il, 447, 427, 3i23, 506 rczrcl r,r,ith Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 (g),3 (r) and 3 (z) ol the Schcduir:d Czrs[cs ;rrrd Schcclu]ed 1'ribes (l)rcvention ol Attrocities) At:t., 1989.

¶38

I)uring pendencl, o1'the present criminal petition, the partics iurvc r:onrprorrisecl thc matlcr and zlccordingl1,, the rcsl;onclcn-r No.f ,' de fircl<-r cornplainilnl has l'ilcri IA Nos,l & 2 ol'.1020 si,'cl<ir-rg ro r'c( or(l [)rt: rrot-r1trr.,tttisc' :itld Lo i;ottlpoltt-tcl Ii'li:^{slrtcl lrll, gr ti} ()ll('ll('( S.

¶39

'll ris CoLrrt ltl ils orrlcr rlattrd 30.1 1.2020 atl'tcr rccorditrg l.hc srrltr.r.tissrops r.lirrll^llr. litc^{lcrlrnod cgur-rscl[or thr: pclilion(]r:i ils} ,,r clL lrs st,r.Onrl r|slrr)ntlCnt /r1e -/hcto contpl:tinar'll aljl-cctccl^tllc piu ties to ilpl)(ilI^llt lirrt: llltl^{liL:qisLl':ir(,JLr<1icia1-l)tlI rhis Cor-trt for} rhCir iclcnrif ic:.rlic>n and^{also clirccted the RegisLrar(.Judicial-l)t.o} sr.ibmil a rcport by^{07.12.2O2O.In compliance of the said direction} o{ this C<>url, thc^{Rcgistr.Ir.(..ludicial-l) has submittedhis report} datcd 03.12.2O'2o.

¶40

IIr t.lte rcport^{strbmiued by the IRegistrar(Judicial-l)'} (la1c(l 0.J. | -)..,).1))O, il ls srtltcti^{ll.lal or) oral c'xamitlation'thr: 2n'l} l.crsl)o|(lcrtl ltits^{slill(:tl Ll-tilt shc: has lilccl a complerirltagail-rstthc} l)(^{rrlr()ncIS irtlrl tllr: stttneltats bc'clltcgisttlrcd as CrirleNo 7'i4 oi'}

¶41

2019 oi Chaitanyapuri^{l'olice Statiot-t lor thc oflcnccs pttnishablc} under Sections^{120-B, 447} '^{427 , 323' 506 rcad rlith Sc'ction34} IPC irr-rc Scctiotrs^{3 (g). ll (r) nnci 3 (z) ol tlrt Schcrlr-tieclCiistc:ri-lll(l} Schcclurlecl^{'lribcs(Prt:r'ctllionol'Attrocitics) r\r't l()S9itllri ill;li itor!} shr: i.tils approacht:cl^{this Cotrrt lor rc'cr>rrlirlg tli(' cr)rllljrr rlllisr-'}

¶42

l. '['i-rc partics hcrcitt illtvc lilr'rl rt Joltrl l'1t'tllo clitttrl 31.10.2U20.^'l'hc sard .Joint Memo^{clatccl3 i10.20,1() artclLlrt} repcrrt of Rcgistrar (.ludicial-l) dated 03. 12.2020 are^pli.lce d on thc record of this Court.

¶43

IrL view of the said report and in vicr,r, of thc contpromisr: cntercd bctween the petitioners and the 2,,,1 respondent, I.A.Nos,l and 2 ol 2O2O arc allon,cd. Corrscquentlr', thc Criminui I)ctition is allorvcd and thc proccedings rn Crimc No. 74,1 ol' l0 l() ol' Clrailarrvapu.i Policc Statior.r .rc hcrcltr. <llrashr:ci. Nlisr.clli.tc,..s pctiti..s. if anr'. lrc,cling ir.r this crinri.rrl pt.tiii.. slrrrll slrirtl closcri

¶44

Sd/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT RE TRAR

¶45

,TRUE COPY//

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To, 1. The Vl Additional Metropolitan [r,4agistrate cum Vl Additional Junior Civil Judge, at L.B. Nagar, Rachakonda.

¶48

The Station House Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Rachakonda.

¶49

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶50

One CC to Sri P. Rana Kamalasan, Advocate IOPUC]

¶51

One CC to Sri A. Saibaba Yadav, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CD Copies

¶53

(Along with a copy of joint memo of compromise)

MMK \ i--

HIGH COURT

TVKJ

DATED:09/1212020

ORDER

CRLP.No.6154 of 2020

t tlE S ie
( o
{ 3 19 Dtc 2W
a
r

::,:,.TCi]

¶61

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

@$e*

II{

tu, #: !:,W i {t ? [ r,X, :r^{r PFrurroN} Procedure code)

¶66

IN THE HIGH couRr FoR -L,mrnal oF TELAwGAIvA

¶67

0t ""ff#rE r.A No, ? of 2o2o cRL.p.No. ? ,,g or zo2o BETI/EEN : 1 Ku'rari. Rajani D/o l. Jasraj Garnbeer @ Hansraj Garnbeer Aged about 54 yea.s, Occ: Blsiness ) Swaraj Kumar S/o J. Jas.aj Gambeer G llansraj Garnbeer Aged about 69 years, Occ: Business J Harish Kumar S/o J, .)asraj Gambeer @ llansraj Garnbeer Aged about 63 years, Occ: Blrsiness i Tejraj S/o J. Jasraj Gambeer Aged about 58 years, Occt Business @ Hansraj Garnbeer 5 Yesuraj @ Yeshraj S/o Srlaraj Kumar Aged abour 44 years, Occ: Business ( All are R/o H. No.2-4-944, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, T.S ) ,,i.r ...Petitioners/Accuse?,Nos. Pto s ANt) 1 The State of Telanga na Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court For the state of Telangana 2. Banothu Nagamma @ Nagamani Wo^{Late Bikku, aged} about 38^years, Ccc: Labour, R/o 1-6-435, Chaitanyapuri, Ranga Reddy District ... Respondent/Complainant

¶68

ANt)

¶69

JOINT MEMO

¶70

The petitioners humbly submit as under

¶71

That the petitioners are the land owners of lands in Sy. No, 214 & 215 of Kothapet Village of Uppal lvlandal, and due to differences the 2nd respondent filed a complaint at P.S Chaitanayapuri against^{petitioners/A1} Lo A5 for alleged offences U/s. 120(B) ,447,427,323,506 IPC^r/,v 34^IPC 3^(g), 3^(r), 3 (z) SC ST POA Act and the Police registered Crime N0.744 ol²⁰¹⁹ dt.27-t2-2019

¶72

Il is submitted that respondent No. 2 and the^petitioners with the intervention oF locality well wishers, amicably settled the^issues between^thenr and^2"'1 respondent does not intend to futher^proceed with the Criminal^case as^both compromised the matter amicablY.

¶73

¶74

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'bel Court may be^{pleasedto permit both parties} conrpound offence in Crime No. 74417019 U/s. 120(8) , 447, 427,323, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC 3 (g), 3 (r), 3 (z) SC ST POA Act of P.S Chaitanayapuri in the interest of justice.

¶75

eEt+6erleaV-cArcrceU-/.rsU-

¶76

RTI ql 1)afl1,"""7
Respondent N.') r1r,n in-1
Date. 3 l-0S2020
Hyderabad J"-t

¶77

1
Q$a,"
,$V.-"
2
J
4 -1'a{ [t . .-- =4+--=-'-. t) -- l.
5
l+;[y
( Petitioner/A1 to A5)
(>

Kumari Rajani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Rajani 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

M.Jayanath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Bhavin Kirtikumar Mehta Vs The State of Telangana