Quashed

G.Srinivasa Rao v. B.Laitha and another

Telangana HC1 Mar 2021CRLP/968/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a combined petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and compounding petitions under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Upon recording a valid joint compromise between the parties and verifying the same via LSC, the Court permitted compounding and quashed criminal proceedings. Reliance placed on Amolakram Ganeshpurohit v. State of M.P. para 6. Order dated 01.03.2021.

What did the court decide?

I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 allowed and Crime No. 708 of 2020 proceedings quashed.

G.Srinivasa Rao Vs B.Laitha and another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

I\IONDAY THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

l.A.Nos. 1 and 2 ol 2 021 ln/and CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 968 OF 2021

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 968 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

G. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nageswar Rao, Aged about 47 years, Fi./o. Louts-35, Occ. Business L and T Serene Country, Telecomnagar, Gach ibowli.

¶10

... Petitio ne r/Acc used

¶11

AND

¶12

I B, Lalha, W/o. Thirupathi, Aged about 41 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. plot No 115, Flat No,204, Windsor Place, Vinayakanagar, lrliyapur, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The State of Telangana, represented, by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondents/Complainant

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.708 of 2020 of Raidurgam police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, in the interest of Justice.

¶16

Common CTs in l.A.Nos .1 and 2 ot 2021 in Criminal Petition

¶17

Between:

¶18

B. Laitha, W/o. Thirupathi, Aged about 41 years, Occ. House wife, RJo. plot No. 1 15, Flat No.204, Windsor Place, Vinayakahagar, I/iyapur, Hyderabad.

¶19

... Petitioner/'l^st Respondent

¶20

AND

¶21

1 G. Srinivala Rao, S/o. Nageswar Rao, Occ. Business, Aged about 47 years, FUo. Louts-35, Occ. Business L and T Serene Country, Telecdmnagar, Gachibowli.

¶22

..RespondenUPetitioner

¶23

2 The State of Telangana, rep bv^pubtic Prosecutor' High court for the state of rerangana, at nyoefSS:lted'

¶24

...Respondents/Respondent

¶25

LA. NO: 1OF 2021

¶26

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, the High Court may be pleased to permit lhe petitioner and the 1st respondent to compound

¶27

the non compoundable offence in Crime No.708 of 2O2O of Raidurgam police Station, Cyberabad, pending before this Court, in the interest of Justice.

¶28

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶29

Petition under Section 320 Read with 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 pleased to compound the offences and to quash all further proceedings in crime No. 708 of 2020 of Raidurgam police station, cyberabad, in the interest of justice.

¶30

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri r.s. Anirudh Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner in criminal petition and Respondent No.1 in l.A.Nos.'1 and 2 ot 2021 ihe Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 in criminal Petition and l.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 and of Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in criminal petition and petitioner in l.A.Nos..1 and 2 of 2021.

¶31

The Gourt made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶33

I.A.Nos. | &, 2 of 2O2l IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.968 OF 2O2l

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/ Accused in Cr.No.70B of 2020, on the file of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, to quash the proceedings in the above sard crimc.

¶36

During the lrer-rciencl of the prcsent Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.1/ de /acto complainant filed i.A.No. 1 and 2 ol 2O2l to permit them to compound the offences and compromlse the matter and accordingly quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Cr.No.70B of 2O2O.

¶37

Vide order dated 16.02.2021, this Court, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the^petitioner as well as respondent No.1, directed the^parties to appear^before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services^Committee, Hvderabad, for their iclcntification ;:trd dtrected the^Secretan'to sr-rbmit a report b1' O 1 .03.202 1. In compliance of the^{said order} dated 16.02.202 1, the Secretary,^{TelanganaHigh CourtLegal} Serr.'ices Committee has subrnitted^{his report dated 23.O2.2O2.}

¶38

In the report dated 23.02.2021 of the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, it is stated that on oral examination, respondent No.1 has stated that she has fiied a compiaint against the petitioner before the Raidurgam police Station and the same has been registered as Cr.No. ZOg of 2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 42O, SO4 and 506 IPc and 3(1)(r)(s) sc/sr (poA) Act, 1989 and thar she has compromised the matter u.ith petitioner/Accused and accordingly she has approached this Court for recording the compromise.

¶39

The parties herein have filecl a joint memo of compromise dated 05.02.2O21 The said joint memo of compromise dated 05.O2.2021 and the report of the Secretary, Telangana.High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, are placed on record.

¶40

6' In view the said report and also in view of the compromise entered between the petitioner and respondent No. i, i.A.Nos. l and2 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal petition is allor,r,ed and the proceedings in Cr.No.70B of 2020, on the file of Raidurgam police Station, Cl,berabad, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/Accused. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

SD/.K,AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' ,\L,-

¶42

To,

¶43

sEcTtoN oFFICER

¶44

'1 The XVr Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶45

The Station House Officer, Raidurgam police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶46

3' Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUTJ

¶47

1. One CC to Sri Thakur Nitender Singh, Advocate tOpUCl

¶48

one cC to Sri rM. Ramachandra R6ooy, A;;;;;i" topucl 6. Two CD Copies

¶49

. .. .. _^{(Along.with a Copy of the Joint Memo)} IVIVK \ sbr^{'^-}

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10312021

COMMON ORDER

l.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 202'l In/and CRLP.No.968 of 2021

¶54

.t
1 H E s lA
j
oc
1 5 |4AB 2021
*
,1tO

¶55

ALLOWING THE l.A.Nos.1 AND 2 AND ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶56

?
@
-z

¶57

(

¶58

IN THE HIGII CoUR,T FoI.^.[IIE STA.I.E oF TELANGANA

¶59

A'r Hyounarau

¶60

l.A No.2 of202t ,1-

¶61

In Cll. l'. No ol'l0l I ?ar

¶62

Belweerr:

¶63

,1.^(i. S rin ivas:r Ilrio.

¶64

S o \irllt'sulrr lilrtt. a-ge.l alrorll -ll .,11. ..,. .-l -....2! It rr. i.rrttrs-.15. I &.1 Scrcn(⁽ ,,ur)l.

¶65

[.1,,.,,rtr .r,-,.rr.⁽ r:rr:lrrh,'rr^li

¶66

... l'ctilirrncr .\ccrrscil

¶67

.'.rr

¶68

.1. Il. I rrlithl.

¶69

\i,o lhirrrlxrthi..rqcd aholrt {l rulri. ,.., (..i,,..,.

¶70

It. o. I)itrl No. I Li. lilal N,. 10.1.

¶71

\ ir',lr',r I)r,rcr. 'in:rraka \u..,rr

¶72

\lir.rprrr'. I lr.lc'rahld.

¶73

2,^'[he Statc ol^'l'clangana,

¶74

llep b.,-- its l)ublic Prosecutor, High^(iourt lirr the State of^-felan[ana. At tll,derabad-

¶75

Respondents/Complai nant

¶76

.lorN'r NIEUo

¶77

The conrplainant and the accused are hereby affixin! thelr signatures in this Joint Memo on their own lree will antl volition and that tlrey undertake to abide by all the conditions mutually agreed upon hv both the parties in the conrprturisc petition

¶78

Iror all thc rcasons staled in tlrc accornpany'ing alfidavit and also the joint melno entercd inlo L)et\veen thr' panles. it is therefbre prnl,rtl rhut this on'ble Court may be pleased to pernlil the petitioner as uell ls lhe llespondent Ir conrporrrrd the offences and consequenlly qtrash :rll liirther proceedings in^('rirne No. 708 ol-2())(t ol'I.lrriilLrlgarn Police Station, Cyberabad, in thc intr'rcst ()l .iust^ice

( lj.Lu,-rl/hc1

B. Lalit ha

(Complainant)

Counsel for the Contpl a I ltant /First Respontlent

¶83

¶84

G. Slinir'as llao (Accusetl) A-,.* Counsel for the Accused

¶85

Ih'oe n.lnel

¶86

.__.J1r.203L

¶87

sIv^,

G.Srinivasa Rao v. B.Laitha and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Srinivasa Rao v. B.Laitha 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

Asif Miya Mohammed,Mohammed Asif Miya Vs The State of Telangana

Nellore Uday Chandu Reddy Vs State of Telangana and another

Dundumala Harish Reddy and another Vs Smt. Lourdhu Mary and another

Donapati Komal Reddy Vs Sri a.Devender and another

Sri. Gella Laxminarayana and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Telugu Prasanna Murthy, And 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And Another