Allowed

S. Thota Praveen Kumar and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC2 Mar 2021CRLP/1008/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with a Criminal Petition filed by accused persons challenging proceedings in a case alleged to be under Section 304-A IPC. The Court allowed the compoundation offences petition filed by the de facto complainant and the accompanying compoundable petitions, recorded the compromise, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 allowed; offence compounded; compromise recorded; Criminal Petition allowed at admission stage; proceedings in C.C. No.3230 of 2020 quashed.

S. Thota Praveen Kumar and 3 Others Vs The State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETIT|ON NO: 1008 OF 2021 AND

¶6

t.A.NOS.3 AND 4 0F 2021

¶7

I.A.NOS,3 AND 4 0F 2021 Between:

¶8

Smt. Banuri Vljaya, W/o Banuri Hanumanth Rao, Aged about 36 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. 7-59, SP Nagar, tvtalkajigiri, Hydeiabad-47.

¶9

...PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT

¶10

ANO

¶11

S. Thota Praveen Kumar, S/o Late. Om Prakash, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Couching SC Ray, Rl/o. Railway Qrtr No.256/2, Secunderabad.

¶12

Anollu Ramakrishna, S/o. A. Yadagiri, Aged about 27 years, Occ Railway Employee (Signaling coaching staff), R:/o. Railway Quarters No. 1 12411 3, North Lallaguda, Secunderbad.

¶13

Gondi Triupati Rao, S/o G. Appa Rao, Aged about^{41_ years,} Occ. Railway Employee,^(Signaling coaching^{staff),Fl/o. Railway Quarters} No 112412, North Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

¶14

Ravula Srikanth, S/o. R.Rayanna,^{Aged aboul 42 years, occ. Railway} Employee^(Signahg coachin-g^{staff), fuo.PlotNo.64, Narthri Gokulam -1} Abdulpurmet, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶15

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High.Court at} Hyderabad, Through Station^{HouseOfficer, LalagudaPolrce statlon'} Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶17

t.A. NO : 3 OF 202'l

¶18

Petition under^{Section320 (6) rtw 482 of Cr'P'C prayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin the ltrlemorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition, the} High Court^{maybe pleased to permit the petitioner to compound the offence} and^quash the^{proceedings in connection withC C No'3230 of 2020 on the file} of XXll ADDL. Chief^{lr/etropolitan t\ilagistrate at Secunderabad'}

¶19

l.A. NO:^{4 0F 202'l}

¶20

Petition under^{Section320 (2) rtw 482 of Cr'P'C prayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin the lt/lemorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition'the} High Court^{may be pleasedto permit the petitionerto compromisethe offence} and^{quashthe proceedings in connection with C'C No'3230 of 2020 on the file} of Xlll Additional^{Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad'}

¶21

CRIMINAL^{PETITION NO: 1008 OF 2021}

¶22

Between:

¶23

¶24

S. Thota fr.avegq Kumar, S/o Late. Om Prakash, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Couching SC Ray, R:/o. Railway ertr No.256/2, S-ecunderabad.

¶25

2 Arrollu Ramakrishna, S/o. A.^yadagiri, Aged about 27 years, Occ.Railway .Emptoyee (Signaling coaching staffj, F/o. Raitway Ou?,t"[ No. 1124113, North Lallaguda. Secunderbadl-.

¶26

a Gondi Triupqli Rao. S/o G. Appa Rao, Aqed about 41 vears. ucc. Kartway Emptoyee, (Sigrlaling coaching staff), Fyo. Railway euarters No 1 1 2412, North Laltaguda,-Secuiderabad

¶27

4 Ravula Srikanth, S/o. R.Rayanna, Aged aboul 42 years, occ. Railwav Employee (Signahg coach in! statf , fu o. eL1-r.rb. 07,'rlrrtiri"Cotli.r'li Abdulpurmet, RangZ Reddy districtl'

¶28

AND

¶29

...PET|TIONER/ACCUSED Nos.1, 2, 3, 4

¶30

1 The State of Telanoana. Rep; .by public prosecutor, High Court at statio..i H"i,," otri.";i,j;;;A;"i"ri.e si"ibn,

¶31

HI5:|3B:3; {hrouo-h

¶32

3* f, 3 l il}it"r,Y1?,F3,H il: ! : [ ft,g* IA:; ln "

¶33

¶34

. 0",,,.,? IZT: a.

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to call for th c c No 3230 or 2020,"" ;";:J:1'r;'[:J"# ff:ffi:,;i,]Jl,,.:l: at Secunderabad, and quash the same.

¶37

t.A. NO :20F 20 21

¶38

petition under Section 482 of Cr. p. C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Ground Hish court may be pruur"o to stay a, rurther i""i^:Ti:]Pet,tion, the connection with the c.c.No.323o of 2020 on the ,,,^':: ::,,'":"]::.'t Masistrate at secunoeraba: [J[ ;:r],1 "fl:,:#" :Hl"l"#,::,1,;

¶39

This petition c g on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grornd, of sri. Mohd rsramuddir of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments Pe"'ners n t'm "' ;::uru;rffi$ii:^{i;"xl:J"Ji^"} Respondent wo s n,il:J: 1",TX;,'T};,^^{;'"lff'lffTj:} Mr' G suresh Goud, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in c r iminar oSr i ' l.A.Nos.3 & 4 ot 2021 . .. rlnrnal Pet tion and Petitioner in

¶40

The Court made the following; COMMON ORDER

¶41

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶42

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1008 oF 2021

¶43

AND

¶44

I.A. Nos.3 AND,I OF 2 021

¶45

COMMON ORDER :(ORAL)

¶46

The Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.3230 of 2020 pending on the file of the leamed XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the said C.C. The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under Section 304-A ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶47

During pendency of the present criminal petition, respondent No.2 herein - de facto complainant has filed I.A. Nos.3 and^{4 of 2021} along with Joint Memo / Metnorandum of Compromise^dated 28.01.2021 seeking permission to compound the^{offencesalleged} against the petitioners and to record the compromise^{between them.}

¶48

Vide order dated 16.02.2021, this Court,^{after recordingthe} submissions made by the^{leamed counselfor the petitionersas well as} the de facto complainant, directed^{the petitioners and the de} facto complainant to appear before^{the Secretary, Telangana HighCourt} Legal Services Committee,^{Hyderabad,on or before 01'03'2021with} reference to theil^{identification and directedthe Secretary, THCLS} Committeetosubmitarepofttothateffectby0l.03.202l.Pursuant

¶49

to the said order, the Secretary, THCLS Committee has submitted his report dated 27.02.2021.

¶50

In the report d,ated 27.02.2021 of the Secretary, THCLS Committee, it is stated that on oral examination, respondent No.2 _ de facto^comprainant has stated that she has fired a complaint against the petitioners and the same was registered as C.C. No.3230 of 2020 (arising out of Crime No.i93 of 2020 of Lalaguda police Station, Hyderabad District) pending on the file of the leamed XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offence referred to above and that now she has approached this Court for permission to compound the offence against the petitioners and to record the compromise between them. It is also stated in the report that identification of respondent No.2 _ defactocompiainant and the petitioners herein is established.

¶51

As per the charge sheet, during the course of investigation, the Investigating officer has recorded the statements of LW.1, wife of deceased, LW.2, eye_witness and LW.3, circumstantial witness. Perusal of the said statements would reveal that there is no negligent act on the part of the petitioners. Even in the charge sheet arso, there is no specific a,egation that due to the negrigent act of the petitioners, the deceased met with an accident and died. It is stated that the buffer ofthe coach No'06226 hit the deceased with force and the deceased sustained multiple injuries to his body and then LW.2 shifted the deceased to Railway Hospital for treatment, where the duty doctors

¶52

¶53

informed that they have brought t}le deceased dead, The only allegation against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 and 3 is that-theirjob ls to caution the workers who were repairing the Coach,l but not cautioned the deceased. F,xcept that bald allegation, there isto other allegation against them.

¶54

In view the above and also in view of the compromise / entered between tle petitioners and the de facto complainant as delineated in the Joint Memo / Memorandum of Compromis;e, the de facto^comp\ainant is^permitted to compound the offence against the petitioners. Accordingly, I.A. Nos.3 and 4 are allowed, the offence alleged against the petitioners is compounded and the compromise between the parties is recorded. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed, at the admission stage itself, and the proceedings in C.C. No.3230 of 2020 (arising out of Crime No.193 of 2020 of Lalaguda Police Station, Hyderabad District) pending on the fiie of the leamed XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan^Magistrate, Secunderabad, are^{quashed against the petitioners herein - accused} Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 atone. The^{above referredJoint Memo /} Memorandum of Compromise^{and report of the Secretary, THCLS} Committee shall fonn^{pafi of the record.}

¶55

As a sequel^{thereto, miscellaneouspetitions,if any, pendingin} the criminal^{petition stand closed.}

¶56

Sd/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGIS RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

1.The)fillAdditionalChieftr4etropolitanMagistrateatSecunderabad' 2.TheStationHouseofficer,LalagudaPoliceStation,Hyderabad.

¶59

One^{CC to Sri' Mohd lslamuddin Ansari' Advocate [OPUCI} 4. One^{CC to Sri' G' Suresh Goud' Advocate[OPUCI} q Two ccs to^{pub'c prosecutor, High courtfor the State of reranganaat} "' HYderabad lOUTl 6. Two^{CD CoPies} (Along^{with a copy of the Joint Memo Compromise)}

sbr \ " 'Ar-

HIGH COURT

DATED 10210 021

ORDER

CRLP.No.1008 of 2021 AND !.A.NOS.3 AND 4 0F 2021

¶65

TAT o
7
t\D il Et1 c)
J,
t
is:r x-
>; |i .- '.
!

¶66

ALLOWNG THE CRITVIINAL PETITTON IN TERM OF COMPROMISE

¶67

*)-t<br><br>

¶68

¶69

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STI'I'EOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

,a-t':2:

I A No. Itl ot 2O2O

of 2020 crl.P No. loa&

¶74

Between:

¶75

;. t[;t; Praveen^{Kumar s/o Late' om[:'rakash'} -AgLJ about 42 years, occ: Couching l:jc Ray' i7o. naitway^{Qrtr No.256/2' Secundelabad'}

¶76

2 Arrollu Ramakrishna^{S/o. A' Yadagiri'} n""O ,n"rt^{27 yearc,Occ: RaitwayE:nrployee(Sig} Rio. Railwav Quarters^{No 1 124l'13'} North Lallaguda.^Secunderbad'

¶77

¶78

ts staffl,

¶79

Gondi^{TriuPati Rao S/o G APPa Rao,} Ag ed about⁴¹ Years,^{Occ:RailwayLnrployee,(S} coaching^staff), R/o. RailwaY^{QuartersNo11)al)} North Lallaguda,^{Secunderaba d.}

¶80

4 Ravula Srikanth^{S/o.R.RaYanna,} n""a ,Uort +Z vears,^{occ: Railway Erirployee (Sig} naling coaching^staff), ni"^pfot Uo. 6a,^{Narthri Gokulam-1 Abdulpurmet'} Petitioner/Accused

¶81

Ranga ReddY^District.

¶82

And

¶83

1)^'l'he State^{of 'l-elangana,}

¶84

^1"r...^{Thraugh Public Prosecutor, H4."'.-l- 41i'*^}

¶85

. - : F€o. bv Staiion^{I'iouse Olficer'} Lalaguda^{Police Station,iiyderabad'Tcilarrgarta'}

¶86

1. Smt. Banuri^{Vijaya Wo' Banuri Hanumi''th Rao'} Aged about 36^{years, Occ House Wife'.} R esponde

¶87

R7o. 7-59, SP^{l'iagar'lvlalkajigiri'llyder;ibad-47'}

¶88

MEMO RANDUf-5^{OF COM}

¶89

so**77Puy'

¶90

This memorandum^{of compromisei'i madeand}

¶91

on this the^{28thday of}

¶92

January,^{?-021at Hyderabad, Telangana, by andbetween: -}

¶93

2,4 year!:i, f0, nderbad. R/o. Ra

¶94

GondiTriuP.rti^{[tao Sio G}

¶95

in g coaching s Aged about⁴¹ Y^{ears, Occ: Railw::Y EmPl} R/o. RailwaY^{Quarters No. l f il'!/2,North} cunderabad.

¶96

c
,,

¶97

7 5 <q-f\1#11^^q$2^-Q.q g.v t kr

¶98

¶99

Ravula Srikanth S/o..R.Rayanna, Aged about 42 years, occ: Railway Employee (Signating coaching statr;, Rto p];iN;. &,'ilrrthri Gokutam _1 ')rou .^{Abdulpurmet,ilanga Reddy District.} (Hereinafter referred to as the "FlR'ST pARTy,)

¶100

/\rid

¶101

Smt. Banuri Vijaya Wo. Banuri Hanumath Rao, Aged about 36 year:;, Occ : House Wife, R/o. 7-S9, Sp Nagar, tVlatkajigiri, Hyder.abad_47. ( Hereinafter referred to as ifrl,,Setond pafi,,)

¶102

1 That the Second party has grven a :omplaint to the S.H.O., Lalaguda police Station on 19.10.2020 and basingl on the said complaint a crime in F r.R.No. 193/2020 was registered agairlst the Accused/ First party for the offence punishable u/s 304-4 of lpC.

¶103

2 That the deceased and accused are r:clleagues working with Railway and due to accident, which is not in the contror oi'anyone and unfortunatery husband of the deceased died. That for doing inquesl report an F.l.R was to be registered and

¶104

under those circumstances, the 2nd Respondent fileci a complaint to complete the

¶105

formalities, in which co-workers are arrilyed as accused by the police.

¶106

3 That on 11'2020, the 2nd respondent iliven a ietter to the porice stating that there is no faurt on the part of the accused and the 2nd respondent given a compraint under unexpected eventuarity, which causes the death of her husband and requested to withdraw the case, but prriice had filed charge sheet.

¶107

4 That the 2nd respondent have no griev,arrce against the accused and they are nor responsibre for the same and as stated rn the compraint that accused warned them by giving signal by saying ,,Samallo,,, and there is no fault on their part and the sameisanaccidentbutnotduetonegiigenceoftheaccuSed

¶108

5 That the 2nd Respondent has no grievance against accused/First party and ready compound the offence i.e C.C.NO3?%f 2020 pending on the file of Hon,ble XXll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at ij.ecunderabad.

¶109

lr*

¶110

Ftsl Parly t 2nd Respondent ?jq Second Party / petitioner -A &k^q *h.^{qs^.k-.q.(} A^Vt'tq)o' Counsel for the First party. Counsel for the Sec d Party. ,ld^-"-

S. Thota Praveen Kumar and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Thota Praveen Kumar and 3 Others v. The State of Telangana and Another

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

Donapati Komal Reddy Vs Sri a.Devender and another

G.Srinivasa Rao Vs B.Laitha and another

Sri. Gella Laxminarayana and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mohammed Nisar Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Jaleel and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Manthena Srinivasa Raju Vs Directorate of Enforcement