Allowed

Shravan Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Mar 2022CRLP/1006/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LTE allowed compensation petition and criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498-A IPC and DP Act after parties entered a compromise, verified identity through Legal Services Committee report, and paid court costs.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in CC No. 760 of 2016 subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 court costs to the Advocates' Association within 10 days.

Shravan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT iiiJf,EABTATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

MONDAY, THE SEV rw o i H o i: ;,il iT,rJr?fJ^pri ym",

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

cRt M INALP ETITto NNO:1 0060F 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

ALo NG l.A. Nos.3 AND 40 F2022

¶8

¶9

2 [Jii.$;:',,ff^{J3ii,':s[?tt4p"-i#&:!:pdsilii,%1,1,,H,,i,ry,R[??} iilJrtip8,foi{0,frf,\tfl^{"H,"_T#d8ti;,",?;;}8,,,,!:fi} i"J,i"r"yi

¶10

? Li$:t?J,5'Jft^{ie"i3i?ni.Xfl;-onffn";,31,fiil,ffi} Tiif, ,y,,,i;*"ft )",

¶11

Pvt employee R/o

¶12

iil!:[#st,33,i^iltrin j,s"fl ,?:?t"13,t:fl :.?,.,3 Hiil s, Road No.12

¶13

AND

¶14

...PETITIONERS/A1 TO 44

¶15

'I . The State of Telanoana, oI tetangana, nt Htoera#T by its Public prosecutor, High court for the state

¶16

...RESPONDENT NO,1

¶17

Rajitha Satyarame, W^/o-strravan Kumar, Aged about 23 years, Occ. Househotd, H.No.3-10-2, noao r,lo.l5, iirjiril"or,i r.rrs;,rlEi'ini,"p"rrv, Qutbuilapur (M), R.R.District

¶18

...RESPONDENT NO.2/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶19

Petition under Section 4g2 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 quash the proceedings against petitioners 1to 4rA1 to A4 herein c.c.No 760 oI 2o16 on the fire of Hon'bre Vr Metroporitan r\rragistrate, cyberabad at Medchal, R.R.District in view of the compromise entered between the petitioners'1 to 4/A1 to A4 and respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

¶20

l.A.No^,,2OF2022

¶21

that^{in the circumstances} Petition^{under Section 482 of Cr'P'C prayrng} tion,^{the High CourtmaY be} stated^{in the lr'4emorandumof Groundsof CriminalPeti} ng the^{aPPearanceof the} pleased^{to stay all further the Proceedingsincludi} n the^{file of Vl lVletroPolitan} 1to^{4tA2to 44 in cc' No760 of 2016o} ;;;;t' *rn,r,rr,",^{Cyberabad at Medchal'R'R District'}

¶22

l.A.^{NO: 3 OF 2022}

¶23

Petition^{under Section 320 (6) of Cr'P C prayingthat in the circumstances} stated^{in the Memorandu* ot erounOt of Criminal Petition'the High Court may be} pleased^{to permit the Petitioners'l to 4 / Al to A4 and the respondentNo 2/defacto} complainant^{to tornpr,ornit" the case in CC No' 760 of 2016 on the file of Vl} Metropolitan^{Magistrate'CyOeraOaO'Medchal' R R District' for the offencesU/s} 498-A^{of IPC and Sectiona anA + of DP Act in viewof the compromisebetween} the Petitioners^{I to 4 / A1 to A4 and the respondent No'2/defactocomplainant} herein.

¶24

l.A. NO:4^{OF 2022}

¶25

Between:

¶26

Smt. Raiitha^{Satyarame,W/o ShravanKumar' Aged.about2i years',Occ'} E"',l;Li8ro,^{n:ru3-1 o-r, R;;'N; i', Ciliusandr'iNasar'Bachupallv'} QutbullaPur^{(tt/),R.R.District}

¶27

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT^NO.2

¶28

AND

¶29

The State of^{Telangana, Rep by its Publicprosecutor'High Court for the State} of relangana'^At Hyderabad ...RESpoNDENT^{No.1/RESP.NDENT No'1}

¶30

Shravan Kumar,^{S/o S.Anjaiah' Aged about 26 ye^ars' Occ Pvt} '^Employee'

¶31

5.A"i"ln, slo.^{bowraiarr,'Rgeda6out 60 years o-cc Retd Emp.loyee} ;: 5.l;i.h;i,-w%-s.Anlaiarr, Ased about^{5'1'years, Occ House Wife,}

¶32

S.Uday Kumar, S/o.S.Anjaiah, Aged about 25 years, Occ.Pvt employee AIt Rr/o H.No.8-2-67611lbl3jlN1 , Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Banjara Hills, Road No.12 Hyderabad.

¶33

...RESPoNDENTS No.2 TO S/PETIT|ONERS 1 TO 4lA1 TO A4

¶34

Petition under section 320 (2) of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be

¶35

pleased to record the respondents z to slpulili^llrnp.romise^and quasl r e or Honoe ;"ffiffi,,;:,11il: ffi]::"| :i,:;1i;:1ffi ":,.l; Medchal, R.R.D.st for the ofrences U/s 4eB-A of rrc and Section 3 & 4 or,r:::

¶36

This petition com. crounds "t^{ar,rrr,"r"i:n "'for hearing' uPon} the Memorandum of Radhika, Advocate a, lt'i 1no 'n^{nurr^!",n'"t"'"9} argurnents of smt' Y. p' s. our,r,on", ,, Nos.2 to 5 in l.A.No.4/2or: "r.r.^,"o',e 3/2022 and Respondent nd the Public Prorl'.r,.o'o No.i in cd.p. and r.A.Nos - Res po nd ent No. 2 in c d. p. : -: :' :?' "t-.; ;;r:ilTH::T;"::,'#:;: and l.A.No.3/2022 and petftioner in t.e.No.qtiiizt. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶37

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE K' LAKSTIMAN} CRI N[IN AL PETITto^N N o.1 006 oF2 022 oN^GWI I.A.N^os. 3AND 40 F2 022

¶38

CoMM^{ON o} RDER:

¶39

the Petitioners^under The^{present Criminal Petition is filed by} e,, 1973,^{to quash the} Section^{- 482 of the Code of CriminatProcedur} g on the^{fiie of VI} proceedings^{in C'C' No'760 of 2016 pendin} Metropolitan^{Magistrate' Cyberabadat Medchal' R'R'District'}

¶40

The^{petitioners hereinare accused Nos'l to 4 in the aforesaid} C.C.^{The offences alleged against them are underSections - 498 A of} IPC and^{Section3 & 4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct., 1961'}

¶41

During^{the pendency of the presentpetition'the parties have} entered^{into the compromise and,accordingly,respondent No'2 - r/e} facto^{complainantfiled I'A.Nos'3and 4 of 2022 to permit him to enter} into compromise,^{to recordthe compromiseand compoundthe} offencesbyquashingtheproceedingsagainstthepetitioners-accused.

¶42

4.Videorderdated2l.O2.2\22,thisCourt,afterrecordingthe submissions made by the leamed^{counselfor the petitiOnersaS WollaS} respondent No.2, directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Couft Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad. on or

¶43

¶44

¶45

belore 04.03.2022 for their^{identificationand alsodirected the} Secretary to submit^{a report by 04.03.2022. In complianceof the said} order, the Secretary^{has submitted his reportdated 03.03'2022'}

¶46

In the report of^{the Secretary,Telangana High CourtLegal} Services Committee,^{Hyderabad,it is stated that the petitionersand} respondentNo.2haveappearedbeforehimalongwiththeirrespective counselandonexaminationandverificationoftheirparticularsfrom their Aadhar Cards,^{they were tallied. Thus, the identification of both} the parties has been^established.

¶47

The^{parties herein havefi1eda joint memoof compromise} stating that^{with the interventionof the elders,they have settled the} disputes between^{them amicably and respondentNo'2 hasno} objection to^{quashthe proceedings against the petitioners - accused'} The said^{joint memoof compromise and the report of the Secretary} are placed on^record.

¶48

In view the^{said reportof the Secretary, TelanganaHigh} Courl Legal^{Services Committee, Hyderabad'and in view of the} compromise^{enteredbetween the petitioners and respondentNo'2'} I.A.Nos.3^{and 4 of 2022 are allowed'Consequently' the Criminal}

¶49

¶50

¶51

Petition is also allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.760 of 2016 pending on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, R.R.District, are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein -accused Nos.l to 4, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana High Cour.t Advocates' Association, Hyderabad, within ten (10) days from today, and file proof of the same into the Registry.

¶52

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

¶53

criminal petition shall stand closed.

¶54

SD/-K.ONESIM ASSIST REGISTRAR

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

SECTION OFFICER

¶57

Note: Cost Memo filed by Smt.^{Y.P.S. Radhika,Advocate} Receipt No.54611. dated 0903.2022^{in Cr1.P.No.100612022} Amount Rs.5,000/-^(Five Thousand^{Rupees) paidto} Tetangana High Court Advocates Association,^Hyderabad. To,

¶58

The Vl Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at^{Medchal, R.R.District.}

¶59

The Station House Officer, Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶60

One CC to Smt. Y. P. S. Radhika, Advocate IOPUCI

¶61

One CC to Sri Angothu Nehru, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

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

¶63

Two CD Copies

¶64

One Spare Copy gbr

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^0710312022

," rlAle
1$ [Pq ?s22 'g
r)
* ,ltrc s. r1i

¶69

COMMON^ORDER

¶70

CRL.P.No.1006^{of 2022} AioNG WITH^{l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2022}

¶71

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND l.A.Nos.3&4OF2022

¶72

/ i I I l I I I I I I I I I	i I t I I I I I l I I l j I I I I I	HIGH 1 OURTFORTI{ESTATE OFTELANGANA ATriIIYDERABAD Crl.petition.Nd.ooLot 2O2l-_ ,iAgainst C.C, No.760of20r6 VIMenopcJlitanMagistrate.Cybera 20 AtHyderabad bad,Medchal,R.RDist I , l. .t*rraai:fra#ilr :i I! 1 R/oH.No.8-2-626/1/b/30/Alt8, SriRamNaga-fColony, BanjaraHills,RoadNo.12 Hyderabad. I ......Petitioners/Atto A4 i'And "LtlloltateofTelangana Bqd^{BfltlFubtic prosecuto.,} HfghCoUn for theStateofTelangana, etflyderuSed, ...RespondentNo.1 (gjlttllShtyarame, W/6Shravan Kumar, Agedabout23years,Occ;Household, HrNo.3-10-2,RoadNo.13,RajivgandhiNagar, Bhchupally,-Qutbullapur(M),R.R.District 2. ...RespondentNo.2/ DefactoComplainant j l i I I I I I I i I I I 1. Befween: 3. 4. S/oS.Anjaiah, Occ;Pvt., Employee, Sri i R/o Banjara I 2.S.Anjaiah, Agdd R/oH.No. SriRam I I

¶73

¶74

JOINT o DON F o Nolto 4 AND N 2

¶75

¶76

¶77

It is submitted that at the. instance of elders and well-wishen, the family members of both the Darties the p"titi";--i';, lAi'?'o ,,o respondent No.2/Defacto complainant have compiomised a ." io-u "tion to settle all and rhe respondent the disputes. Both parties have cqrnppsm;5sd " ;il;;; No.2/defacro complainant ard the petitionersl""""i'r l" c hI'ug.."d to withdraw 2016 the complainr and on the fire of hence Hon,bre no obieciion. vl u.u".i-Ji"""rrlliir,#],.iro*"0.d, to qr";h ;;;;;;ir*r'i" aa No. Medchar,760 of RR.Distfor the offences U/s 498_A of pc iras.aioii[a "ioy"".

¶78

It is submitted that hence. the, respondent 2 does not intend to proceed with the case in CC No. 760 of 20t6 on the m" "i u#il"'vr'u'Jo1or,* Magisrrare, Crberabad, Medchat. R.R. Dist.for the ori".;r;;;4,i;_;;;;t,uno Section3&4 of

¶79

Hence it is prayed that the -Hon,ble Coun may be pleased to quash the Merropotitan proceedings in CC No. 760 of 20-16 ", tfr. nL'"? H"#li. ", Magisfiate,Cyberabad. Medchal. RR.Dist, f"r-ifr" "ff*.., "tiil 49g-A of IpC and Section 3&4 of Dp Act in view of the rp-." .rr*.JU"""", the petitioners/ Al to A4and the respondent No.2/Der""to "o'n^piuint'i,,iIi""i"l"'r, "r;rrri.". Hyderabad

¶80

Date: Z1 .01.2022 Z1 .01.2022 .01.2022

¶81

I
Date: Z1 .01.2022 Z1 .01.2022 .01.2022
petitioners /Accused No.l to 4
,(
I
2 0 (
3.s
,
4. U, l
/
a Ir
Respondent No Complainant.
Counsel the petitioners/Accused No. I to 4 j
I
Counsel for tle respondent No
Compla rnant
I
I
I
I
I

Shravan Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shravan Kumar 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

Raghu Pajjuri Vs State of Ts

Bethamcherla Mahamad Vali Vs The State of Telangana

Jadi Rajamallu Vs Erram Tirupathi and 8 others

Puchakayala Rajani Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Savalam Koteswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Savalam Koteswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana