Allowed

Thatiparthi Mohan Rao and 2 Others v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC22 Apr 2021CRLP/447/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2021 and Crl.Petition No. 447 of 2020 filed by accused persons in an SC/ST (POA) Act case. The court recorded that a compromise had been reached between the parties and quashed the proceedings in S.S.C. No. 94 of 2019.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in S.S.C. No. 94 of 2019 pending before the Special Sessions Judge, Warangal, are quashed against the petitioners.

Thatiparthi Mohan Rao and 2 Others Vs The State of… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE T A^p R I L rwo ri olu's1[]lYNBEff ]irD#€F

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

I.A.N os. 1 AND 20F 2021 IN/AND

¶6

CRIMIN AL PETI TION NO:447 oF2020

¶7

.A.Nos. 1AND2 F2 21

¶8

Mamidi Raiaiah, s/o.yeilaiah, Aged about 75 years, occ. Agricurture, R/o.H.No.4-65, Neeruku ta vi ltase Atma ku, H,i, n"oil w;;;s;i R;;I "dstrict.

¶9

...PETITIONER/2Nd RESPONDENT/GOMPLAINANT iN bOth AND

¶10

Thatiparthi [/ohan Rao, S/o.Narsinga Rao, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Agricutture, Ryo.Neerukuta vilage, AtmZkui Hrt""orilwrrlrJJinrirr bj.i,"i'it. ""

¶11

Thatiparthi Linoa Rao. S/oNarsinga Rao, Aged about 61 years, occ. Agricurture, R/o.H.No.3-5-i't 0, Tailors Street, Frinamkoffi WJrrngrt Urban District.

¶12

Thatiparthi_ Prabhakar Bgo, !/g.Vt.inga Rao, Aged about 59 years, Occ. lnspector Generat of^police, StB, R/o.Fi-at No.Sb, c"Vner M,d;G, I\ir]i-J bu;;u, Kondapur, Hyderabad.

¶13

..RESPONDENTS/PET|T|ONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 3 in both

¶14

The State of Telanga.na , Rep..by.its public prosecutor High Court of for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

¶15

.... 1"t RESPONDENT/STATE iN bOth

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C. r/w Sec.482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner / 2nd respondent to compound the offences under Section 3 (1) (f) (g) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 2015 which is subject matter of SSC.No.94 of 2019 on the file of the court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act Cases -cum- Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal .

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 320(2) ol Cr.P.C. rlw 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the terms of compromise and quash the proceedings in SSC.No.94 al 2019 on the file of the court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act Cases-cum-Vll Additonal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

¶20

¶21

cRl^{M INALPETITloNNO:447OF2020}

¶22

Between:

¶23

olf i'$",.:ffi:l^{?'tr b:3fi;. o'"}

¶24

' I!ffiXI,^{#3i31",X*11;'ili#li"[9"?'5i3;}

¶25

'l?slf^{*liid,,,',,".d;jfSruilgz11,.lf."iig3g"Uffi?[?ffi} 'fl11icutture'

¶26

,l*l,y"f Slt:I3?Xtfi sfl"",S€;Y,ilPP"l,["13i,i',?1,i$i,1'-31-iiff konoapur'^Hyderabad ",?33' "''ET'''.NER/ACCUSED^1to3

¶27

AND

¶28

The State^{of Telangana , Rep' by its Public ProsecutorHiohCourt of for the} state of Telangana'^{At Hyderabad} l'' RES?oNDENT/STATE

¶29

Mamidi^{Rajaiah, S/o'Yellaiah, Aged about,75years-,occ Agriculture'FVo H'No'4-} ' ii;'ii;;;ri;ii uittus", limlxi'r illanoal' warahsal Rural^District'

¶30

...2nd RESPoNDENT/coMPLAINANT

¶31

PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P.CprayingthatinthecirQumstancesstated intheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased to call for the^{records relating to casein ssc.No.94 ol 2019on the file of the court} of Special Sessions^{Judge For Trial of Cases Under SC/ST (POA) Act CasesCum} Vll Additional^{DistrictAnd Sessions Judge, Warangal and quash the proceedingsin} the above SSC.No.94^{of 2019}

¶32

I.A, NO:'l OF 202⁰

¶33

Petition under section^{482 ol cr.P.c praying thatin the circumstancesstated} in the N/emorandum of Grounds of criminal^{Petition,the High courtmay be pleased} to stay all further^{proceedings including appearance of the petitionersin SSC.No.94} of 2019 on the file of the^{courtof Special Sessions JudgeFor Trialof casesUnder} SC/ST (POA) Act Cases Cum^{Vll Additional District And Sessions Judge, Warangal.}

¶34

These Petitiond coming on for hearing,^{upon perusing the N/emorandum of} Grounds of criminal Petition^{and upon hearingthe arguments of Sri A. Prabhakar} Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners^{in Crl.Petition Respondent 1to3in l.A.Nos.1&2 of} 2021 and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of^{the RespondentNo 1. Crl.Petitionand} Respondent No. 4 in l.A.Nos.1 &2 ol 2021^{and of Srilril. Durga Prasad, Advocatefor} the Respondent No. 2 in Crl.Pertition and^{Petitionerin l.A.Nos.1 & 2 ot 2021.}

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2O2L IN AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.447 of 2O2O

¶37

COMMON ORDER:

¶38

This Criminal Petition is Illed by the petitioners / accused Nos.l to 3 in S.S.C.No.94 of 2019 pending on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases - cum - VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(tX0(d of SC/ST (POA) Act, to quash the proceedings in the above said case,

¶39

During the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.2 - de facto complainant filed LA.Nos.I and 2 of 2O2l to permit him to compound the offence and quash the proceedings in S.S.C.No.94 of 2019.

¶40

Vide order dated 08-04-202 1, this Court, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2, directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Cor-rrt Legal Services Committee, I-lyderabad for their ider-rtification and also directed the Secretary to submit a report by 22-04-2021. In compliance with the said order dated 08-04-2021, the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad has submitted his report dated l9-O4-2O21 .

¶41

¶42

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 he fi1ed a complaint against the petitioners and that the same has been registered as S.S.C.No.94 of 2019 pending on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (pOA) Act Cases - cum - VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, for the offence punishable under Section 3(l)(f)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act, and thereafter he entered into compromise with the petitioners and accordingly, he has approached this Court for recording the compromise.

¶43

The parties herein have filed a joint memo of compromise dated 21-03-2021. Tbe said joint memo of compromise and the report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legai Services Committee, Hyderabad are placed on record.

¶44

In view the said report and also in view of the compromise entered between the petitioners / A-1 to A-3 and respondent No.2, I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2O2l are allowed. Consequentiy, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.S.C.No.94 of 2Ol9 pending on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (pOA) Act Cases - cum _ VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, are hereby quashed against petitioners / A- 1 to A-3 only. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

SD/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' N-'-

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

'l . The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act Cases -cum- VllAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

¶49

Two CCsto Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI t^</sup>

¶50

t^</sup>

¶51

ConLrl-,_-

¶52

One CC to Sri.^{A. PrabhakarRao,Advocate} [OPUC] i 4. One CC to Sri.^{tvl. Durga Prasad, Advocate} IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of Joint^{l\ilemo of Compromise)} CDL gbr Z zF-'

HIGH COURT

1 I

DATED: 2210412021

COMMON ORDER

LA.Nos.1 AND 2 OF 2021 ln/and CRLP.No.447 of 2020

¶58

({ '1 r'A 14:
o
\
0 1 MAY 2021 o
'}
i,,/
)i,-.. ,.-.: ./.
'i-,.-:,,-..r,. ;;-,:;7'

¶59

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶60

IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE.

¶61

o4 % 6

¶62

-ffii *HJu

¶63

MEMORANDUM OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 320 OF CR.P.C R/W. SECTTON 482 OF CR.P.C.

¶64

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAGANA AT HYDERABAD

r,A.NO.

OF 2021

Crl.Petition No.447 Of 2020

¶69

Between:

¶70

Nlamidi Raja ia tr, S/o,Yella ia h, Aged about 75 years, occ: Agriculture, Pro.H,No,4-65, Nec.L,l..u,a v,llage,

¶71

Atmakur Nlandal, Warangal Rural District.

¶72

., Petrtioner/2"d Respondent/Com plaina nt

¶73

And

¶74

Thatiparthi Mohan Rao, S/o.Narsirrga Rao, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Agricr-rlture, R/0. Neeruku la villaqe, Atmakur Mandal, Warangal Rural District.

¶75

Thatiparthi Linga Rao, S/o.Narsinqa Rao, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-5-1 10, Tailors Street, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District.

¶76

Thatiparthi Prabhakar Rao, S/o.Narsinga Rao, Aged about 59 years, Occ: lnspeuior General of Police, SIB, R/o.Flat No.3B, cyber I'4idows,

¶77

l'4a.;id Banda, Kondapur, Hyderabai,l. . R,'ispondents/Petitioners/Accused^-1 to 3

¶78

The State of Telangana,

¶79

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor

¶80

High Court of for the State oF Telangana, At Hyderabad.

¶81

... Respondent/State

¶82

]OTNT MEMO

¶83

It is subrnitted that the petitioner/2nd respondent filed private complaint in the court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act Cases -cum- VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal against the respondents I to 3 who are accused, in which the 2''d respondent stated in the complaint that the accused exchanged thelr land admeasuring Ac 3.24gts in Sy.No.653 in lieu of the land admeasuring Ac 2.23gts in Sy.No.624,625 and 627 situated at Neerkula village, Atmakur Mandal. Some civil disputes arose between the petitioner and accused with regard to the said land. The Learned Judge took cognizance of the offences under Section 3 (1) (f) (g) of SC/ST(POA)

¶84

qia/"dfr

¶85

AS accused and^{nuirbered the complaint} Act, 2015 against^the SSC.No.94l219.

¶86

2, It is submitted^{that the aacused / respondents 1 to 3 hereinfiled} Criminal Petition^{No.447 of 20zoseekingto quash the proceedingsin} SSC.No.94l2019,^{this Hon'ble Courtby an order dated 23'1'2020was} pleased to order notice and^{granted stay all further proceedings'}

¶87

3'Itissubmittecjthatduringpenclencyoftheabovecriminal petition, on intervention of^{elders and well wishers, the disputes} between the^petitioner /^{2nd respondentand the accused perSOnS were} resolved amicably.^{In view of the settlement reachedbetween the} respondents 1 to 3^{and the petitioner,the petitioner/2nd respondentis} not intending to^{prosecutethe criminal case filed by the petitioner} against the accused,^{the petitioner} /^{2''d respondent has no oblection for} quashingtheproceedingsinSSC.NO.g4of20tgonthefileofthecourt of Special Sessions^{Judge for Trial of CasesunderSC/ST (POA)Act} Cases -cum-^{VII Addl. Districtancl SessionsJudge, Warangal'}

¶88

It is therefore^{prayed that this Hon'bleCourt may be pleased to} recordthetermsofcompromiseandquashtheproceedingsin ssc.No.94 of^{2019 on the file 01'the court of special sessions Judgefor} TrialofCasesunderSC/ST(PoA)ActCases_cum-VIIAddl.Districtand Sessions Judge,^{Warangal and passsuch other order or ordersas this} Hon,ble court may^{deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.}

Thatiparthi Mohan Rao and 2 Others v. The State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thatiparthi Mohan Rao and 2 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

Syed Zakir Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Azher Vs The State of Telangana

Mupparapu Ngaraju Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Smt.G. Sangeetha Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Shivaratri Kumaraswamy Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Mohammed Irfan Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana