Allowed

P. Prasanth , Perupally Prasanth v. P.Ramyasri

Telangana HC16 Jul 2021CRLP/3827/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings regarding cognizable offences under IPC and D'P Act upon recording a joint compromise between parties who had achieved judicial separation and were seeking mutual consent divorce. Court allowed I.A.s for compounding and quashing the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.94 of 2017 quashed. Proceedings under I.A.Nos.2 and 3 allowed upon recording of compromise.

P. Prasanth , Perupally Prasanth Vs P.Ramyasri — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYOERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

LA.NOS.2 AND 3 0F 2021 IN/AND

¶6

CRIMINA PETITION NO: 3827 0F 2021

¶7

COMM oN c.T. lN^C L.P.NO.3827 oF 2021^{AN D r.A.NO.2 0F202',1} Between:

¶8

P. Prasanth @ Perupally^{Prasanth,g4o p'} 4q!'ptt^{Kumar,aged about 31 Years'} occ. Businesi,are^{of Fyo H.No.3-5-506/ 1, vittalwadi, NearHanuman Temple,} Narayanguda, HYderabad-500027

¶9

2.P.ChandraKumari,W/o.PerupallyAshokKumar'Agedaboul6lyears'Occ' - ffbulefroiO, Both are of R/o H.No.i-5-506/ 1, Vittalwadi, Near Hanuman Temple, Narayanguda, HYderabad-500027

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{NO.1& 2}

¶11

AND

¶12

1 p.Ramvasri, w/o P. Prasanth @ Perupally Prashanth and D/o. Mothukuri^chari ,o"J 52 ueirt. Occ. Housewifel^{F/o. predentresiding at H.no 1-10-1221812'lo8'} Ainokna6er, Street^{No.1O,Hyderabad-500020.}

¶13

.,.RESPONDENT^{NO.1/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT}

¶14

2 The State of Telangana,^{Through WPS, CCS representedby its Public} Prosecutor, High Cburt^{for the State of Telangana}

¶15

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO:3827OF2021}

¶17

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.cprayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition,the High courtmay be pleased to} Quash the criminal^{proceedings initiated against the Petitioner/AccusedNo.'1 and 2} herein in c.c.No.94 al^{2017 0n the file of the Learned xlll Additional chief} Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Nampally, Hyderabad.}

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under section 320^{(6) R/w Section 482 ol cr.P.cpraying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the Memorandum of Groundsof Criminal Petition, the High} CourtmaybepleasedtopermitthePetitioners/AccusedNo'land2andthe Respondent No.1^{/ Defacto-complainant to file the compromise petitionin the above} CriminalPetitiontocompoundtheoffencesU/s.498-A,406,4and6ofDPAct'in c.c.No.94 of 2017 on^{the file of the Hon'bleXlll Additionalchief Metropolitan} Magistrate, Nampally,^{Hyderabad;and pass such other order or orders as this Hon',ble} Court deems fit.

¶20

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2021

¶21

Between:

¶22

P.Ramyasri, W/o P. Prasanth @ Perupally Prashanth and D/o. tvlothukuri Chari aged 32 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. present residing at H.no.1 -10-12 2l\l2,lo B, Ashoknager, Street No.10, Hyderabad-500020.

¶23

AND

¶24

1 P. Prasanth @ Perupally Prasanth, S/o P. Ashok Kurrar, aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.3-5-506/1 , Vittalwa ji, Near Hanuman Temple, Narayanguda, Hyderabad-500027

¶25

2 P. Chandra Kumari, Wo.Perupally Ashok Kumar, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Household, Fl/o H.No.3-5-506/1 , Vittalwadi, Near Hanuman Temple, Narayanguda, Hyderabad-500027

¶26

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS'\CCUSED NO.1 & 2

¶27

The State of Telangana, Through WPS, CCS representerl by its public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana

¶28

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶29

Petition under Section 320 (2) R/w Section 482 of Cr.p.O praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to record the compromise and euash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No.'1 & 2 in c.c.No.94 of 2017 on the fi e of the Hon'ble xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶30

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶31

Petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the (jircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High crurt may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings in c.c.No.94 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Xlll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶32

For the Petitioner in l.A.No.2 ol 2021 And l.A.No.3 of 2021 and for the Respondent No.1 in crl.p.: sRl M. BAI\IKATLAL MANDHANI

¶33

For the Respondent No.2 in l.A.No.2 of 202.t Crl.P. No.3827/2 021 and Respondent No.3 in l.A.No.3 of 2021

¶34

For the Petitioners in l.A.No.2 ol 2021 and l.A.No.3 of 2021 for the Respondents For the Petitioner in Crl.p.No.3 B2tt2O21

¶35

: THE PUBI-IC PROSECUTOR

¶36

: SRI NATRAJ STNGH

¶37

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶38

I !

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI.IUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶40

I.A.N os.2 & 3of 2027 IN/AND c AL IONNo.3a270F 2o2L

¶41

coMMON ORDER:

¶42

This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.9 4 of 2OlZ on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 49g_A and 406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry prohibition Act, to quash the proceedings in the above said crime.

¶43

During the pendency of the present Criminal petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.l-de facto complainant filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2O2l to permit her to compound the offences and to compromise the case in C.C.No.94 of 2017.

¶44

Vide order dated 30.04.202 l, this Court, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.1, directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad for recording compromise.^In pursuance of the appearance of the parties, the Secretary^has submitted his report dated 74.07.2021.

¶45

4 . In the report of the Secretary,^{TelanganaHigh Court} Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad,^{it is stated that on oral} examination, respondent^{No.1 has stated that she had filed a}

¶46

complaint^{against the petitioners/accusedNo' 1 &' 2 before the} WomenPoliceStation,DD,Hyderabad,fortheoffencesunder Section^{498(A), 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of D'P' Act' and} that the^{same has been registeredas FIR No'141 of 2016'} dated 19.07.2016^{and later it was numbered as C'C'No'94 of} 2077 on the^{file of XIII Additionai Chief Metropolitan} Magistrate at^{Nampally,Hyderabad,and that now she has} approached this Court^{for recordingthe comprornise'}

¶47

The parties herein^{have filed ajoietmemoof} compromise dated 26.04.2021.^{The said joint memo of} compromise and the report of the^{Secretaryrrre placed on} record.

¶48

In view the said report and also in view of the compromise entered between the petitioners and respondent No.1, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceeding:i in C.C.No.94 of 2Ol7 on the lile of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶49

M i s c e 11 an e o u s Pe titi o n s, q 9 n dilg!-any_,, i! 3l! s-!€Eq,C!,9,F_9.d,

¶50

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSiISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Hon'ble Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶55

The Station House Officer, WPS, DD Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶56

One CC to Sri M. Natraj Singh, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, Advocate IOPUC]

¶58

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of^'felangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶59

Two CD Copies 7. One Spare Copy gbr

:::::-...:=*

HIGH COURT

<br>

DATED:^1610712021

COMMON ORDER

l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of²⁰²¹ IN/AND CRLP.No.3827 of²⁰²¹

¶66

1 t\L
(
e
coJ 10 AUG202I -\o
.i.
ot'
:)
I
.i:.L

¶67

ALLOWING THE I.A.NOS.2 AND 3 OF 2011,1 CONSEQUENTLY THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶68

¶69

¶70

l, I i 3 /,IN THE HIGH COURT FOR trIHE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶71

AT HYDERABAD l.A.No. ) 11 of 2021,

¶72

1n C11.P.No 3,eqa*rzozr

¶73

I BET1VEEN: 1 P.Ramyasri, W/o P.Prasanth @ Perupally, Prashanth and D/o. Mothukuri Chari aged 32 years,

¶74

occ: Hciusewife, R/o. prbSent residing at i H.no. I- 10- 122 I I I 2, to B, Ashoknager, Street No. 10, Hyderabad-500020.

¶75

...Petition erf Respondent No. 1/Defacto-Complainant I 1

¶76

I Iri,ilnl 1. P. Prasanth@ Ferupally Prasanth, S/o P. Ashok kumar,

¶77

aged about 38 years, Occ: Business

¶78

W/o.Perupally Ashok Kumar;

¶79

Aged about 61 years, Occ: Household,

¶80

Both are of R/o H,No.3-5-506/1,^Vittalwadi, Near Hanuman ,TemPle,^NaraYanguda, , Hyderabad-27 ...Respondint jl{o.1^{& 2llPetitioners/AccusedNo'1 & 2} I ) 3. The State^{of Telanganathrough} WPS, DD Police^{Station,rePresented} by its Public^{Prosecutor,High Court} for the State of^Telangana.

¶81

...ResPondent/^ResPondent

¶82

JOINT MEMO

¶83

TO PERMIT^{THE PETITIONER NO.1&2 ANDRESPONDENT/DEFACTO.}

¶84

CO NANT TO^{COMPOUND THE} CE INC .No 40^{F 2017 0N} ED XIII A.C.M .M..^N . HYD^ERABAD

¶85

THE FILE^OFTHE

¶86

MAY IT^{PLEASE YOUR LORD} J HIP

¶87

1. It is submitted^{that the Peti'tioner/} i,^{Respondent/ Defacto Comi:lainantherein} initiated^{criminalpto"""l1tiot' against the} ":"1:1"": & .,)'^'

¶88

2/Petitioners/Accused^{No'1 & Z vid;.F^rRNo'5+1of 2016 of WPS'DD'}

¶89

. Hyderabad,^{U/s 498-A, 406 of IPC and 4 & 6 of D'P' Act in whichPolicefiled} thechargesheetvideC.C.No.g4of2oTTbeforetheLearnedXlllAdditionalChief Metropolitan^{Magistrate at Nampally'Hyderabad'whichis pending triai and} the next^{dateof hearin g is on12 'O7 '2021'}

¶90

H l,.lr-"t ( P

¶91

¶92

2.ItissubmittedthatthePetitioner/Respondeflt/Defacto.C)ofnplainantfiled.a p.titio., for Judicial^{Separationdated'26'07'20'16 vide O'P'No'996 of 2016 on} thefileoftheHon'bleJudgeAddl'FamilyCourtCityCivi)Court'Hyderabad' After hearing^{P&tioner/Respondent/ Defacto-Complainar: tand Respondent} Nos. 1/ Petitioner^{No'1, the learned Judge was pleased tc pass ordersdated} o2:og.2o2O^{in favour of the Petitioner/ Respondent/ Defar:to-complainant for}

¶93

Judicial^{Separationfor a period of one year And granr:ed maintenance to} Petitioner/^{Respondent/Defacto-Complainant a+4 'to her son (P' Aryan)an} amount of^Rs'8,000/- Per^month'

¶94

It is submitted^{that aggrievedby the ordei. pa"$ealby the learned Judge Addl.} Family court, ciry^{civil court, Hyderabad,ille ResponrlentNo.1 / petitioner} No.1 hled F.C.A.No.2^{of 2O2l before tl,iisHon'btrerCourt ar'd this Hon'ble court} directed the Respondent^{No.l/PetitionerNo.l ,t9 pay thi' first installment of} Rs.2,00,000/- to the Petitioner/Respondent/Defacto-complainant^{and another} two weeks to^pay the balance^{arrears of Rs.2,00,000/-(ap1'roximately).}

¶95

It is further submitted that Re$pondent r^No.1/Pe titioner^No. 1^and Petitioner/ Respondent/ Defacto-Complaindnt liVidgl separ,rtely for more than hve years and as on today they both could: not E{jr,rst wite each other. Due to temperamental differences their marriage has broken down irretrievably and it is now not possible between them to live ag husband and vrife any more. Al1 the efforts for reconciliation between them to continiue the marr.iage has failed and there are no further chances of reconciliation tb:tween Respondent No.1/Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner/ Rebpondent/Defacto-()omplainant as both are residing separately since 2016. ,

¶96

It is further submitted that on the teqqentidrl of elde:'s, well-wishers and friends, the Respondent No. 1 & 2/Pe ti6rrers/Accused No.1 & 2 anh the Petitioner/ Respondent/ Defacto- Compl t have settleil their disputes but of Court amicably for which a Joint M orandum ol Coml)romise is also filed herewith and as such there is no li lihood of any fur ther litigation It is pertinent to mention here that both of em have now tde,:ided to dissolve the marriage lega1ly through a decree of vorce on mutual consent and J,.o " petition U/s. 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage t, 1955 vide O.P.Io.489 l of 2O2l dated 01.03.2021 which is pending.

¶97

It is further submitted that the Rpspondentl No. 1 / Petitioner No 1 and Petitioner/ Respondent/ Defacto-Complainarrt agroed that they will iil J o nt

¶98

I f' ul,-.1"* ka-*^)L/' tl

------.-

--.-.--::#*

I I i /b ' memo in F.C.A.No.2 of ,2O21 pending before this Hon,ble Court to withdraw the procee gs in view of the mutual consent divorce.

¶104

7 ' That h.'" to intervention of erders and well-ivishers, the Respondent No' I /Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 and petitioner/ Respondent/ DefactocomplLinant entered into a compromise and agreed to crose the cases pending between them on the following terms and conditions:

¶105

I al Ttrat the Respondent No.1/ petitioner/Accused No,1 I shall pay A:total sum of,R*.10,00,0o0/_ (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) towards full and final settlement. That out of the said amount the Rlespondent No. l/petitioner No. I paidian amount of {s.a,0o,O00/-(Rupees Four Lakhs only) d?rte[ 01.03.2021 to Petitioner/ Respondent/ Defd.cto-Complainant vide D.D.No.090059 drawn on Union Bank of India, Himayatnagar Branch.

¶106

bf The Respondent No.1/ tioner No. 1 shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of the Petitioner/ Respondent/ DefacI to-Complainant at the l..i

¶107

time of hearing of^petitiontct quash the proceedings in :llr.l

¶108

CC.No.94 of 2Ol7 on^the file of the Hon'ble XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate,Nampally} Hyderabad before^{the Hon'ble High court for the state} I

¶109

of Telangana,^HYderabad.

¶110

cl The Respondent^{No.l/Petitioner No'1 shall pay the} remaining balance^{of Rs.4,00'00O/-(RupeesFour} Lakhs Only) to^{the Petitioner/Respondent/Defacto-} Complainant at^{tfetime of recordingevidence in} O.P.No.489 of^{2Q2l dated 01'03'2021 which is} pending on the^{file of the learned Judge, FamilyCourt'}

¶111

d) That the^{Petitioner/ Respondent/ Defacto-Complainant} categorically^{agrees that on receipt of the above stated} Rs.1O,O0,O00/-^{(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) fromthe} Respondent^{No. 1/ Petitioner/Accused No'1'the} Petitioner/Respondent/Defacto-Complainant^would have no^{further,claim whatsoever in anymanner} against the^{Petitioner/AccusedNo' 1'}

$ P.,t^Jat<o"au

etitioI ner i. No.l has returned ali the

¶116

1. it'is submitted^{that the Respondent No'l{P} l articles also^belongingto

¶117

articles^{whichincludesGold andSilver} and l Petitioner/^Defacto-

¶118

Petitioner/^{Respond ent/Dqfacto-Complair'rrlurt} Complainant acknowledges^{the same and Petitioner/Rr:sPondent/ Defacto-} Complainant agrees that^{she will have no claim what sc' ever in naturern} future from^{RespondentNo' 1 / Petitioner'}

¶119

g.ItissubmittedthatthecontinuationofproceedingsinC''3'No'94ol2017orr the file of the^{LearnedXIII Additional ChiefMetropolitan M agistrate, Nampally,} Hyderabad will^{amount to abuse of proce.ss ap} Fuch^{the interventionof this} Hon'ble Court is^{just and necessary to gu4shthb pqme'}

¶120

That this Hon'ble Court has, lMide i^{qowers topermit the} Petitioner/Respondent/Defacto-complainant l4dl )^Restrrondent No.1^& 2 I Petitioters lAccused no. 1 & 2 to enter into ipfnpromise and thereby record the compromise and quash the proceedings in,C.C.No.9+ of 2077 against the Respondents/ Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2.

¶121

Therefore, the Petitioner/ResponSent/ Defagto CompJ ainant herein prays of I.P.C. and 4 & 6 of DP Act and the proceedings against the 1 2 in C.C.No.94 of 2Ol7 on the the Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, orders as this Hon'ble Court deems iit

¶122

M'?,"^-f'-^

¶123

Petitioner/ Respondent No. 1 / t
Respon dent No. 1 / Petitioner/Accused n .1
ii
p
ir
RA"pondent No.2 / Petitioner/ Accused nb.2
^"-')rr*kat".d-u I
i
i
Counsel for Petitioner I
Counsel fori Res :ondent No. 1 &,2
/

¶124

Counsel for Petitioner

¶125

Place: Hyderabad Date:

P. Prasanth , Perupally Prasanth v. P.Ramyasri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Prasanth , Perupally Prasanth v. P.Ramyasri

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

E. Navin Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Mr. Thota Pavan Vs Department of Home

Mohammed Sameed Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Aleem MD Vs The State of Telangana

puttapaka Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Prof.Gaddam Laxman Vs The State of Telangana and another