Allowed

Rajaganesh Chandrasekaran v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jul 2021CRLP/3578/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2021 and Criminal Petition No. 3578 of 2021. Relying on the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee report confirming the compromise between the complainant and accused, the Court quashed proceedings in C.C. No. 349 of 2021 for offences under 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

What did the court decide?

I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2021 allowed; Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C. No. 349 of 2021 quashed against all accused.

Rajaganesh Chandrasekaran Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT.FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

l.A.Nos. 2 AND 3 OF 202'l IN/AND

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3578 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Rajaganesh Chandrasekaran, S/o. S. P. Chandrasekaran, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Private Job, R/o. D.No.1/1, First Street Aitthammal Nagar Chinanthirupathi, Salem, Tamilnadu

¶9

I S. P. Chandrasekaran @ Chandrasekaran Ponnuswamy, S/o. Ponnuswamy, aged about 61 years, Occ. Business, R/o. D.No.1/1 , First Street Aitthammal Nagar Chinanthirupathi, Salem, Tamilnadu.

¶10

Vasantha Chandrasekaran, Wo. S. P. Chandrasekaran, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. D.No.1/1, First Street Aitthammal Nagar Chinanthirupathi, Salem, Tamilnadu.

¶11

Sanjana Chandrasekaran, D/o. S. P. Chandrasekaran, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Business, R/o. D.No.1/1, First Street Aitthammal Nagar Chinanthirupath i, Salem, Tamilnadu.

¶12

...Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 to 4/Respondents in l.A,No.2 and 3 ol 202'l

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Kushaiguda Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶15

... Respondent

¶16

Smt Aarthi Gandhi, Wo. Rajaganesh Chandrasekaran, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o. Plot No. 113/b, Viayapuri Colony, Dr. A. S. Rao Nagar, ECIL, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

.,.RespondenUComplainanUPetitioner in l.A.No.2 and 3 of 2021

¶18

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. 349 ol 2021 on the file of the XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 320 (6) Read with 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^theHigh Court may be pleased to^permit the^petitioner herein to compound the offence U/Sec.498(A) r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. and to^quash the^proceedings in C.C.No. 349 ot 2021 on the file of the XIX Additional Metropolitan^Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri.

¶21

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under section 320 (2) Read wrth 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit and Joint Memo of compromise filed therewith, the High court may be preased to record the compromise and to quash the proceedings in c c.No 349 ot 2021 on the fire of the xrx Additionar Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgirl.

¶23

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar^petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri B. Anir Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners and the public prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and cf sri M. pratap singh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶25

I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2021 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3574 OF 202L

¶26

COMMON ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 4 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.349 of 2021, on the file of XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1965

¶28

During the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.2 filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2O2I to permit them to compound the offence and compromise the matter and accordingly quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No. 349 of 2021 .

¶29

Vide order dated 09.07.2021, this Court, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.2, directed the parties to appea-r before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, for their identification and directed the Secretary to submit a report by 22.07.2021. In compliance of the said order, the Secretary,^{Telangana High} Court Legal Services Committee has submitted^{his report} dated 19.07 .2021 .

¶30

In the report dated l9.OT.2O2l of the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, it is stated that on oral examination, respondent No.2/ compiainant has stated that she . has filed a complaint against the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the same has been registered as Crime No.29 of 2O2l for the offences under Sections 498-A read with 34 of IpC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1965, later it was numbered as C.C.No.349 of 202I, on the file of XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, C5,berabad at Malkajgiri and that now she has approached this Court for recording the compromise with the petitioners/ accused Nos. I to 4.

¶31

The parties herein have filed joint memo of compromrse dated 19.O4.2O2I. The said joint memo of compromise and the report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, are placed on record.

¶32

In view of the said report and also in view of the compromise entered between the petitioner and respondent No.2, LA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2e2l are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.349 of 202I, on the file of XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Clrberabad at Malkajgiri, are hereby quashed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4.

¶33

¶34

Miscellaneous^petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶35

closed.

¶36

<br>

¶37

SD/. B. SAryAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// &

¶38

SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

1' The XIX Additionar Metroporitan Magistrale, cyberabad, at Markajgiri.

¶41

Two ccs to the^pubric prosecutor, Aigh court'foi the siate oriet'a'ngana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶42

One CC to Sri B. Anil Kumar yadav, Advocate [OpUC]

¶43

9n" !! !o^{sf M.pratap Sinsh, Advocare} topu'Cj

¶44

Two CD Copies

¶45

(Along with a copy of the Joint Memo)

HIGH COURT

KLJ

DATEDt22l07l2021

COMMON ORDER

l.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2021 ln/And CRIMINAL PETIT|ON No: 3578 ot 2OZ1

¶52

o3 1HE sla c
ia $(
,,J >
07 ilu[tI[
-1,
../

¶53

ALLOWING THE r.A.Nos. 2 AND 3 oF 2021 AND ALLOWTNG THE CRTMTNAL PETITION

¶54

o t )<br>k

¶55

^.l--e'*-.-

¶56

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE SIATE OF TETTNGANA AT IiYDERABAD

¶57

Crt,p.No, 3W ot202t

¶58

against

¶59

C.C.No. 349 of 20Zt (on the flle of the XIX Addl. Metroporitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Markajgiri)

¶60

Between:

¶61

1 ) Rajaganesh Chandrasekaran s/o S. p,Chandrasekaran Aged about 34 years, occ:^private job

¶62

1. S.P,Chandrasekaran @ Chandrasekaran ponnuswamy s/o Ponnuswamy, aged about 61 years, oic: business

¶63

1. Vasantha Chandrasekaran Wo S,p,Chandrbsekaran Aged bout 58 years, occ: Housewife

¶64

1. Sanjana Chandrasekaran d/o S.p.Chandrasekaran Aged about 31 years, occ: Business

¶65

All are r/o D.No.1/1, First Street Aitthammal Nagar Chinanthirupathi, Salem, Tamilnadu

¶66

.. Petitioners/Accu sed Nos, 1 to 4

¶67

And

¶68

1. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Kushalguda Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, rep. By^{public prosecutilr,} High Court, Hyderabad.

¶69

1. Smt. Aarthi Gandhi w/o Rajaganesh Chandrasekaran Aged about 28 years, occ: Private Service r/o Plot No, 113/b, Viayapuri Colbny, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, ECIL, R.R.Dis(rict.

¶70

.,Respondents/Complainant

¶71

.lOTNT FMO FI IFDB FP ETI'I1 ON FR AN DR FSPON N ENT Nn2

¶72

It is submitted that the 2nd respondent filed private complaint which was referred to Kushaiguda police station, who in turn registered a case in FIR No. 29l20zL for the offence U/Sec,498 (A)^y'w 34IPC and Sed, 3 and 4 of D,p, Act. Later the police have .completed the investigation and filed charge sheet before the court of learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri

¶73

1. It is submitted that during the pendency of the above sa;.l case at the intervention of e elders and well-wishers , the matter has been amicably s and I !

Itv v\\ I

-2-

the 2nd respondent and the petitioners herein,,have compromised the matter and the 2nd respondent has agreed to withdraw the above said case unconditiona lly. In view of the amicable settlement of the issue, no purpose would be served in continuing the above said proceedings.

¶78

In view of the above it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise and quash the proceedings in C,C.No, 349 of 20?t on the file of the XIX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, in the interest of justice

¶79

a
oh.
03. 9e5$q
-n
02" b'f
ir
D
C,(W
PETITIONERS
L
RESPONDENI' trJ.2

¶80

cou L FOR PETITIONE
/
COUNS FOR RES,NO.:2

¶81

¶82

.:',-..*E.-'.

Rajaganesh Chandrasekaran v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaganesh Chandrasekaran 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

Pathepuram Naveen Vs The State of Telangana

Redcarpet Tech Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Dmi Finance Private Limited Vs the State of Telangana

Smt. Kantimahanti Padma Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Memon MD Amin Abdulrajjak Vs The State of Telangana

V. Aditya Vs State of Telangana, And Another