Allowed

Balakavi Sai Vikram v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Dec 2021CRLP/3837/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition and interim applications seeking quashing of proceedings involving dowry harassment and criminal breach of trust. The court quashed the F.I.R. following a compromise and identity verification by the Legal Services Committee.

What did the court decide?

Criminal F.I.R. No. 41/2016 (C.C. No. 384/2021) quashed; Interim Application Nos. 2 and 3 allowed. Petitioners directed to pay Rs. 20,000 to Advocates' Association.

Balakavi Sai Vikram Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

TN THE HIGH COURT I

¶2

E oF rELANGANA

¶3

^J8.:"P_lglt WEDNESDAY,THE TWE rwo ri o u,s-illJffis ?y,?i# oFED Ec E M B E R

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

I.A. N OS .2 AN o3 oF2021

¶7

IN/AND

¶8

CRIMI NAL PETITION NO :3837 0 F 2021

¶9

t.A. o 2 N 3 F 2021

¶10

Between

¶11

Balakavi Vijaya Laxmi, W/o.Sar Vikram Aged about. 26 yrs, Occ. House wife R/o H.No.23-6-74lz rA, Srikinv" foli"r.l"il"w Shayampet, Hunter Road, warangat .. pejtitioneiTl,o'i"Jplnolnt

¶12

And

¶13

1'The State of reranoana, rep by its pubric prosecutor, High court for the State of Tetanlana'eiilvdeiioJ"-^{' 'Iiespondent} / Respondent in both

¶14

'1 ' Balakavi sai Vikram, S/o sai prakash Aged about. Engineer R/o Frat No.203, Sri Ganesh Apartment Near CEikkadapJit#.'s. n1c'cros"Road, Hyderabad

¶15

Balakavi Kamakotishwari, W/o Sai prakash Aged about. 60 yrs, Occ. Retired Emp_lo-yee !/g Flat No.203, Sri Glanesh Apartments, Near Chikkadpalli PS RTC Cross Road, Hyderabad

¶16

Balakavi Sai Prakash, S/o Srinivasa Murthy Aged about. 64 yrs, Occ. Retired Employee. R/o Flat No.203, Sri Ganesh Apartments / Near Chikkadapalli PS, RTC Cross Road, Hyderabad

¶17

IVs. Balakavi Gayathri, D/o Sai Prakash Aged about. 25 Yrs, Occ. Physiotherapist, R/o Flat No.203, Sri Ganesh Apartments Near Chikkadpalli PS, RTC Cross Road, Hyderabad

¶18

Dr. Balakavi Madhusudhan Rao, S/o Srinivasa ltllurthy Aged 58 Yrs, Occ. Doctor R/o Flat No.307, Pruthvi Emrald Apartments, Golkonda Cross Roads, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad .. Respondent

¶19

( Respondent No.3 representing R4 & 85 GPAT:.":r"::::.r" brder dated 23-07-2021^{in l.A. Nos. 4 & 5 ot 2021} )

¶20

l.A. NO:2 OF 2021

¶21

Petition under Section 320⁽⁶⁾ 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 permit the petitioner/ 2nd} respondent to compromise^{with accused C.C.No.384 of 2A21on the file} of I Addl. Judicial First Class^{lt/agistrate at Warangal.}

¶22

t.A. NO:^{30 F2021}

¶23

Petition unde^{Section320 (6) R/w 482 oJ Cr'P C praylngthat in} the circumstances^{;tated"in in" ft'fJtotandumof Grounds of Criminal} Petition,^{the High t ourt may'Ue pteaseOto compound the offencewith} the respondenUpe^{ition"illlt""d hereinby-} -^{allowing the Criminal} Petition filed^{bv ilre petitionlit} "gJ""t^{b c'ruo :ga ot 2021 on the file of I} iaoi.lroi"i"r^{iirst llass Magistrateat Warangal'}

¶24

Crl.P etiti^{onNo.38ttol 2021}

¶25

Between:

¶26

Balakavi^{Sai /ikram, S/o Sai Prakash} {9ed^{aboutEnoineer R/o Flat} No.203, Sri^{( )anesh A;;;;;"i Ni;"i Cfiir<kaoapalliP:S RTC Cross} Road, HYder rbad

¶27

Balakavi^{Kar nakotishwari, W/o Sai PrakashAged ;about 60 Yrs,} - Gi. RetireO Employee R/o Flat No.203, Sri Ganesh Apartments, Near Chikkar^{palli PS RTCCross Road, Hydrabad}

¶28

Balakavi Sai Prakash,^{S/o Srinivasa Murthy Aged about. 64 Yrs,} Occ. Retired Employee.^{Rl/o Flat No.203, Sri GaneshApartments /} Near Chikka, lapalli PS,^{RTCCross Road, Hyderabad}

¶29

Ivls. Balakav Gayathri,^{D/o Sai PrakashAgedabotrt.25 Yrs, Occ.} Physiothera; ist,^-R/o Flat^No.203, Sri^{Ganesh ApartmentsNear} Chikkadpalli^rS, RTC Cross Road,^Hyderabad

¶30

Dr. Balakavi Vladhusudhan Rao, S/o Srinivasa^{I\4urthy Aged 58 Yrs,} Occ. Doctor VorFlat No.307, Pruthvi Emrald Apartments, Golkonda Cross Roads Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad

¶31

( Petitioner N c.3 representing P4 & P5 G.P.A. Holder as per Courl Order dated 23-)7-2021 in l.A. Nos. 4 & 5 of 2021 )

¶32

...PETITIONE RS/ACCUSED

¶33

AND

¶34

The State of- felangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of^- elangana At Hyderabad

¶35

Balakavi Vija a Laxmi, W/o Sai Vikram Aged about. 26 yrs, Occ. House wife F /o H.No.23-6-7412, 1A, Srikinya Towers, New Shayampet, Junter Road, Warangal

¶36

...RESPON DENT/COM PLAINANTS

¶37

Petition unt er Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances sta ed in the Memorandum of Groun,Js of criminar Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitiorer/accused No.1 to 5 in c.c.No.3 e4 of b02l on tie file of I Addl. Judici ll First class tvagistrate at warangal in the interest of justice.

¶38

LA. NO: 1 OF 202'l

¶39

Petition under { ection 482 of Cr.p.C praying thal circumstances sta ed in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^inthe Petition,the High C rurt may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the appea "ance of the petitioners/accused 1 to 5 in c.c.No.354 o'f 2021 on the file rf I Addl. Judicial First class Magistrare at warangal, pending disposal of the above quash petition, in the interest of ustice.

¶40

/..'

¶41

This Petition comin Memorandum or c,.o,n'i..:i:,JL iffilf :::,,,J."T:I;.' ,.|: arguments of Smt. E. f. MANJUSHAA ,Advocate for the petitioners in Crl,Petition and Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in l.A. Nos. Z and 3 ol 2021 and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in all petitions and of Sri D. Radha Krishna Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in Crl.Petition and petitioner in l.A. No. 2 and 3 of 2021 .

¶42

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶43

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K' LAKSHMAN}

¶44

I.A.Nos.2^{AND 3 of 2O21} IN/AND CRIIV INAL^{PETITION No'3837 0F 2021}

¶45

coMMON^ORDlR:

¶46

This Crim nal^{Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused} NoS.ltoSinC'].No.384of2o2IonthefileoftheIAdditional Judiciai First^{class Magistrate at Warangal,relatingto} Cr.No.4l of 2(16^{on the file of the Police, WomenPolice} Station, Waran ;ai City,^{registeredfor the offencespunishable} under Sections 498-A and^{406 of IPC and Sections3 and 4 of} the Dowry Pro ribition Act, to^quash the^{proceedings in the} above said Cale ndar Case.

¶47

2, During t1 e pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties ha'e compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No. 2-de facto complainant filed LA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021 to perr it her to compound the offences and to compromise th'. above said Calendar Case

¶48

Vide orde' dated 23.07.2021, this Court, after recording the submissio rs made by the learned counsei for the petitioners as v e11 as respondent No.2, directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legai Services Comn-.. ittee, Hyderabad, on or before 3O.O7 ,2021 for their identificat on and also directed the Secretary to submit a report by 30.07.2021. In compliance with the said order dated 30.07.2(21 , tine Secretary has submitted his reoort dctted 29.07.2O lr.

\ \

4 In the report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, it is stated that in obedience of the orders dated, 23.O2 .202I, thepetitioners and the 2"a respondent have appeared before him along with their counsel. The petitioner Nos.4 and S/ A.4 and A.S are represented by the petitioner No.3/A.3 as their GpA holder. On examination and verification of their particulars lrom their Aadhar Cards, they were tallied. Thus the identification of both the parties has been established.

¶53

It is aiso further mentioned in the report that on orai examination, respondent No.2 has stated that she had filed a compiaint against the petitoners/A. I to A.5 before the Women Police Station, Warangal City, who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.41 of 2016 for the aforesaid offences and later it was numbered as C.C.No.384 of 2O2l by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal.

¶54

_].,

¶55

The affidavit filed by the 2"d respondent would reveal that with the intervention of the elders, they have settled the disputes between them amicably and she has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein/A. 1 to A.5 in C.C.No.384 of 2021.

¶56

In view the said report of the Secretary, Telangana^High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and^{also in view} of the compromise entered between the^{petitionersand} respondent No.2, I.A.Nos,2 and 3^{are allowed. Consequently,} 1n the Crimina-1 Petition is allowed^{and the proceedings}

¶57

¶58

C.C.No.3B4^{of 2C 18 on the file of the IAdditional Judiciai} Magistrate^{of Fir ;t Class' at Warangal' are hereby quashed} against^{the petiti rners herein/A' 1 to 5 subject to pa1'ment of} a]1amountofRs20,0O0/-(RupeesTwentyThousandonly)to the Telangana^{H gh Court Advocates'Association'Hyderabad'} within ten^{(10) lays from today' and file proof of the same}

¶59

into the^Registry

¶60

As a seque^{[, the miscellaneousPetitions' pending if any'}

¶61

shall stand^{clost d'}

¶62

SD/.T,S^INIVAS,,' A^SSISTANTREGI STRAR

//TRUE^COPYII

SEC^{ION OFFICER}

'"ii[i'#}["?r#']i,ff ili:I:if;*il1.:{qrfi ilyk#"l.t1"Stateof " Telangana (C JT)- - i 313^{33 [ s [ ilJll[i,:;Hi't3J:'rl3f"'i"]o} 6 Two^{CD CoP es} One^{Spare c rPY} of^{joint memo of comPromise)}

¶67

along^{with a c( PY}

¶68

*o".ouMemorr:1.,,:t-il,Y,H;:!1tii1i,.1.tlillifulim',

¶69

Advocar^esAssocia Receipt^{No.5 I 1?} 1. P,"l:"r:l il;; Thousand^{On Y) Pato to}

HIGH COUR^T

DATED:2211212021

COMMON^I)RDER

r.A. NOS. 2 AND 3 0F²⁰²¹

¶74

IN /AND

¶75

t.
.J
.ft 1,
i
! it "q',t- *
i:) {t'" $
ilut-, I *'
) l:i.l x 2

¶76

CRLP.No.i,837 ot 2021

¶77

ALLOWING TH ] I.A. NOS. 2 AND 3 OF 2O2I

¶78

AND CRL.PETT ]ON.

¶79

<br>a,/

¶80

lt is submifted that the 1- P€titione"t->na present joint Memo to cornpound respondent ierern fired the the offences ," ** *" matter is sett]ed out of couft amica Petitioner as dre bly.

¶81

For the reasons i be preased to penlit -stated above' it is prayed that this Hon'bre court may herein,. c.mp.und,he n"tt'n bY allowing 66 ":::,^{;m#ffi".;::::;.,} '' 'nt petitioners against t tile of lAddr. Judicia, 4 of 2021 on the class A4agistra" u"'t''o'" other order or orders ". :'tt' Flon'ble coul't mav t'H:ilHil: circumstances ofrhe case.

¶82

Hyderabad

¶83

DatedPn04,202t /

¶84

er/2n ondent Counsel forthepftio nerl2nd respondent /<4e^ RespondenvA..ur.d^{I 'b} 4n"n' 9 c')tnY"* r( /^u$ntC -5 (-,",^ Counsel tor espondent/accused /

Balakavi Sai Vikram v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakavi Sai Vikram 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

Smt Vongala Jayalaxmi Devi Reddy , Jaya Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Smt. J. Geethalaxmi Vs State of Telangana

S.Narsimha Reddy Vs S.Jyothi

Bottu Amrutha Vs State of Telangana

P.Anji Reddy and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sri. Thokala Balavardhan and 3 others Vs Smt. Depalli Pravalika and another