Allowed

Ippalapally Rajasekhar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Mar 2021CRLP/1016/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Privy union High Court of Telangana allowed the criminal petition and quashed criminal proceedings based on a joint compromise memo and a Legal Services Committee report confirming settlement between matrimonial parties.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.98 of 2015 under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed.

Ippalapally Rajasekhar Vs The State of Telangana — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,LAKSHMAN

¶7

l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 oI 2021

¶8

ln/and

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1016 OF 2021

¶10

l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2021

¶11

Between:

¶12

lppalapally (Yekkaladevi) Pavana, wife of Rajasekhar,^{Aged.33years,} Occ. Empioyee,^Ri/o Plot No.^{133, Gayatri Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad'}

¶13

.. Petitioner / 2nd Respondent in both

¶14

AND

¶15

lppalapally Rajasekhar, son of^{Kamalakar,Aged.. 35y9ars,} Occ. Emfloyee,' R/o H.No. 22-43, BJR^{Nagar,Jawahar Nagar, Kapra} lvlandal, Medchal, Malkalgiri District.

¶16

lppalapally Kamalakar, don of^{Kuchaiah, Aged. 59 years,.Occ. Employee,} Rlo H.Uo. 22-43, BJR Nagar, Jawahar^{Nagar, Kapra Mandal'Medchal,} Malkajgiri District.

¶17

Smt. Malkajgiri^'lppalapally District. Kalavathi, wife of^{Kamalakar, Aged-. 50 years'} occ. H6Lse Wifa, Ryo H.No. 22-43,^{BJR Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Kapra} Mandal, tr/edchal, Malka.igiri District.

¶18

looalapallv Rakesh Kuhar, son of^{Kamalakar, Aged. 33 years,} Obc. Emritoyee , R/o H.No. 22-43,^{BJRNagar,Jawahar Nagar} ,^Kapra Mandal, Medchal, lr/alkajgiri District.

¶19

The State of Telangana,'iep.,^{by its Public Prosecutor,HighCourt of} Judicature at Hyderabad

¶20

.. Respondents in both

¶21

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 320⁽⁶⁾ of^{Cr.P.C prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{lVemorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition, the} High Court may be^pleased to^{permit the petitioner to compound the offence} Under Sections 3 and 4 of the^{Dowry ProhibitionAct and quash the} proceedings in C.C.No.98 of 201 5 on the file of the lll Additional^JuniorCivil Judge cum XXlll Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Medchal.}

¶23

( Prayer amended as per Court Order dated 12-03-2021^{in l.A. No. 5 of 2021} in Crl.P.No.1016 of 2020 )

¶24

LA . NO: 4 OF 2021

¶25

Petition under Section 320⁽²⁾ of^{Cr.P.Cpraying that in the} ctrcumstances stated in the^{lvlemorandumof Grounds of criminalPetition, the} High Court may be^pleased to^{record the compromiseand quashthe} proceedings in c.c.No.9B of 2015 on the^{file of the lll AdditionalJunior civil} Judge cum tvletropolitan^{t/agistrateat tvledchal,Cyberabad.}

¶26

( Prayer amended as^per Court Order^{dated12-03-2021 in IA. No' 5 of 2021} in Crl.P.No.1016 of 2020 )

¶27

CRl.P. No. 1016 of 2021

¶28

Between:

¶29

lppalapally Rajasekhar, son of Kamalakar, Aged. 35 years, Occ. Employee Rl/o H.No. 22-43, BJR Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Kapra Mandal, Medchal, Malka.igiri District.

¶30

lppalapally Kamalakar, son of Kuchaiah, Aged. 59 years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o H.No. 22-43, BJR Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Kapra Mandal, Medchal, Malkajgiri District. Smt. lppalapally Kalavathi, wife of Kamalakar, Aged. 50 years, Qcc.^{House Wife,Rl/o H.No. 22-43,BJR Nagar, JawahlrNagar, kapra} Mandal, Medchal, Malkajgiri District.

¶31

lppalapally Rakesh Kumar, son of Kamalakar, Aged. 33 years, 9cc..Employee, |/9^{HNo.22-43, BJR Nagar, JawahirNagar, kapra} Mandal' Medchal' Malkajqiri District ..^petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 4

¶32

AND

¶33

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. 2 lppalapally (Yekkaladevi) Pavana, wife of Rajasekhar, Aged. 33 years, Occ. Employee , Rl/o Plot No. 133, Gayatri N'agar, BorabZnda, Hyderabad.

¶34

..,RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶35

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 proceedings in C.C.No.9B o,f 2015 on the file of the lll AJCJ cum XXlll Metropolitan Magistrate Medchal.

¶36

( Prayer amended as per Court Order dated 12-03-2021 in l.A. No. 5 of 2021 in Crl.P.No. 1016 of 2020 )

¶37

l.A. NO: 2 OF 202'l

¶38

Petition under Section 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 stay all further proceedings in c.c.No.98 of 2o15 on the file of the lll AJCJ cum XXI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad pending disposal of the main Crl. petition.

¶39

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri A. Ravi shankar, Advocate for the petitioner in crl.petition and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in r.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2021 and the pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in crr.petition and Respondent No. 5 in l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2021 and Sri M. pratap Singh Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2021 .

¶40

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶42

I.A.Nos.3 AND 4 of 2O2l IN AND CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.1OL6 of2O2l

¶43

COMMON ORDER:

¶44

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners / accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.9S of 2015 on the file of the III AJCJcum-XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medcha_l, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act to quash the proceedings in the above said C.C.

¶45

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 2021 to permit her to compound the oflences and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.98 of 20 l5

¶46

Vide order dated I6-02-2021 , this Court, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsei for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2, directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, Teiangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad for their identification^and a-lso directed the Secretary to submit a report by 01-03-2021. In compliance with the said order dated 16-02-2021,^the Secretary, Telangana High Court^{Legal Services Committee,} Hyderabad has submitted^his report^{dated 22-O2-2O21.}

¶47

¶48

In the report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, it is stated that on oral examination, respondent No.2 has stated that she had filed a complaint against thc petitione rs and that the same has been registered as C.C.No.98 of 2015 on the file of the III AJCucum-XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that now she has approached this Court for recording the compromise.

¶49

The parties herein have filed a joint memo of compromise dated 05-10-2020. 'lhe said joint memo of compromise and the report of the Secretary, l.clangana High Court Legal Services Committce, I{ydcrabad arc placed on record.

¶50

In view the said report ancl also in view of the compromise entered betw,een the petitior-rcrs and respondent No.2, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 are allou,ed. Consequently, the Criminai Petition is allou,ed and the proceedings in C.C.No.9g of 2015 on the file of the III AJCJ-cum-XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closecl.

¶51

To,

¶52

SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' ,\t SECTION OFFICER

¶53

The lll Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XXlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.^-

¶54

The Station House Officer, Alwal police Station, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶55

?. Two CCS to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶56

One CC to Sri A. Ravi Shankar, Advocate IOpUCt

¶57

! _One .C_C !o^{Sri M. Pratapsingh. Advocate(OPUC)'}

¶58

Two CD Copies

¶59

&"^.( along with a copy of joint memo of compromise ) l

HIGH COURT

DATED:1^210312021

COMMON^ORDER

r.A. NOS.^{3 AND 4 0F 2021} IN /AND 'C-Cup.r.ro.1 o1 6 of²⁰²¹

¶64

i!r
oR T H E l4
e
(1<br>t'
lt APfl202t
)-
+ {
c f.9

¶65

ALLOWING^{THE GRL'PETITION'}

t) h )

l2l

JOIN^{T MEMO}

1 on ti-re intervention^{of elciersand relatives the petitioners and t1-re 2nd} responclent/complainant^{have compromised the matter'}

¶70

,t. f

¶71

The 1't^{petitioneland the 2nd respondent agreed to obtaindivorce by} mutual eonsent by filing^{necessary applicationsin the C.M.A.No'716} of 2Ql6 and agreed to live^separately.

¶72

Both the parlies have agreed to withdraw^cases filed^{against each} other and have furlher agreed not to file cases against^{eacl-rother in} future and live independently.

¶73

The 2'd respondent has agreed to not to enforce the orders passecl in maintenance case claiming past, present and futule mainlenance.

¶74

The 2nd respondent has agreed to r.vithdraw D.V.C.No.10 of 2018 on the file of Mobile Court and JFrlM, Sangareddy without claiming any releifs.

¶75

The l't petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs and fifty thousands only) towalds fu1l and final settlement as permanent alimony, wl-rich includes past and future rnaintenance.

¶76

At the time of entering into this memorandum of understanding , the 1't petitioner has paid a sum of Rnpees 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and fifty thousands only) vide cheque bearingNo.000029 drawn on Andhra Bank , BDL Campus, Kanchan Bagh Branch, Hyderabad dt: 2l-03-2020 and has agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rupees 3,00,000/- after withdrawal of all the cases and on the date of granting Divorce.

¶77

8.Both the parlies have agreed to strictly adl.rere the terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum of understanding dated 2lMarch,2020. il31

¶78

ll3lt

¶79

g,Both parties^{haveagreedto appearbefore the Hon' ble$gurt [T-r-'-} 'r,i,""n^'rtheotoce.edin.l'lJ.:"X':r:'-:::,":::";:;:TI;' MetroPoiitan^{Magistrate '} e Divoce^{bY mutuai consent}

¶80

t Defacto^co 4 o.1^. Accr'rsed r cc d N .2 a1 {a{-y-^-l-{9 o 3 t1 t ,,4 /\1../ fuY!"u*"'o Counsel^{for the} spondents/ r the^Petitioner Counse Accused^{Nos' 1 to4} lainant' Defacto^comP Hyderabad' Date.05-10-2020^' al'JdLt;l ea"^) {) -,! <-.--\ \ro.e" It^ qo( f^ ^r^'\o( ?"1' o (A l:o-^r5\r'Lt t-ltx\ss\r'"t 'r' {t-' 1o v

Ippalapally Rajasekhar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ippalapally Rajasekhar 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

N.Rajanlinga Murthy Vs State of Telangana

Mohd. Wasaeem Vs The State of Telangana

Rangu Bhavanachari Vs The State of Telangana

Nampalli Mallamma Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

Asra Housing Vs The State of Telangana

Bajireddy Govardhan Vs The State of Telangana