Allowed

Kakarla Geetha Rani v. State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC23 Jun 2022CRLP/13688/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed letters of appeal dated 2022 and Criminal Petition No.13688 of 2014 seeking quashing of proceedings registered under the SC/ST Act based on a compromise and settlement of Rs.2 lakh between parties.

What did the court decide?

I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2022 and Crl.P. No.13688 of 2014 allowed; proceedings in Crime No.988 of 2013 are quashed.

Kakarla Geetha Rani Vs State of Telangana and Another — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

t.A. NOS. 1 D 2 0F 2022

¶6

IN/AND

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITI NO: 13688 OF 2014

¶8

t.A. NO. 2 0F 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt Erukala Vanam Kaveri, Wo.Erukala Vanam Pullaiah, Occ:Housewife, R/o. 1-3-80/38, Near Shirdi Sai baba Temple, Jambika Colony, Medak.

¶11

.. Petitioner / Respondent No.2

¶12

And

¶13

Kakarla Geetha Rani, W/o. Kakarla Srinivasulu, Occ:Housewife, R/o. NBT Nagar, Road No.12 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. .. Respondent No,1 / Petitioner

¶14

State Of Telangana , Rep,, by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶15

.. Respondent / Respondent

¶16

Petition under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C prayirlg that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to take this affidavit and MoU dated 24.03.2022 on record and quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Fir No.988 of 2013 dated 26.11 .2013 on the f ile of P.S.Banjara Hills in terms of compromise entered into between the partres.

¶17

CRl.Petit ion No. 13688 of 2014 & LA. No. 1 ol 2022

¶18

Ilctrr cen:

¶19

Kakarla Geetha Rani. W/o. Kakarla Srinivasulu, Occ:Housewife, R/o NBT Nagar. Road No.12 Banjara Hills. Hyderabad.

¶20

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED in Crl.Petition and l.A.No. 1 of 2022

¶21

AND

¶22

1 State Of Telangana , Rep., by public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶23

Smt Erukala Vanam Kaveri,, Wo.Erukala Vanam pullaiah, Occ:Housewife, R/o, 1 -3-80/38, Near Shirdi Sai baba Temple, Jambika Cotony, lr,4edak.^-'

¶24

...RESPONDENT/COMPLATNANTS in Crl.petition and t.A.No.1 of 2022

¶25

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal-peiition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused rn crime No. 9BB of 20'13 on the file of the SHO, Ban.jara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶26

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶27

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 take this Joint Memo on record in respect of the compromise entered between the Petitioners/Accused petitioner/Accused and the 2nd Respondent herein to compound the offences in FrR No.9gg of 20'r3 dated 26.1r.2013 on the file of P.S.Banjara Hills, Under Section 3(.1) (x) of the SC/ST Act 1989 .

¶28

CRLPMP. NO: 14433 OF 2014

¶29

Petition under section 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 stay all further proceedings against the petitioner/acused in ciime NO.988 of 2013 on the file of the SHO, Banjara Hi s, Hyderabad.

¶30

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. BALA IVOHAN REDDY,Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.petition and l.A.No..1 o,f 2O2Z and Respondent No.^'1 in l.A.No. 2 ol 2022 and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in crl.Petition and l.A.No. 1 of 2022 and Respondent No. 2 in l.A.No. 2 ot 2022 and of Sri Md. NAZEERUDDIN KHAN, Arjvocate for the Respondent No. 2 in crl.Petiton and l.A. No. 1 of 2o2z and petitioner in r.A.No. 2 ot 2022

¶31

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶32

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶33

l.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022

¶34

ln/and

¶35

Crl.P.No.13688 of 2014

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

l'he petitioner, who is accuscd fi Icd this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Clr P.C. to quash rhe proceedings in Crime No.988 o1' 20ll o1' Ilan.iara IIills l)olicc Station, Ilyderabad for thc oll-ences punishable undcr Sccrion i ( l) (X) of the Scheduled Clasles and Schcdulcd^'l ribcs (l)rcvt-rrtion of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶38

During pendency of thc Criminal Pctition, the parrics have compromised the matter and accordingly, rcspondcrrt No.lde facto complainant has filed l.A.Nos. I and 2 ol202l to yrcrrnir her to enter into compromisc, record thc terms of'contprontisc thereof and compound the olfenccs b-,.' quashing thc proccc'dings against accused in the said crimc. Along u,ith thc said applications, a joint memo which is sigrrcd bv thc paltics and their counsel, photographs of thc partics and Photosrut copit-s ol ./

¶39

¶40

their Aadhar Cards carne to be filed. In thc affidavit filed it has been staled that respondent No.2 - de facto complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioncr /accused belore the police Station and the same has been registercd as Crime No.9gg of 2013 for the aforesaid ol-tbnce. While so, now the de facto complainant has entered into conrpronrise with the accused by virtue of' Mernrrandurn ofUnderstanding, dated24.03.2022 and accuscd agrced to pay Rs.2.00 lakhs to her and accordingly approachecl this ('ourr tbr recording the compromise with the pet itioner/accuscd and they have settled the matter outside the Court and she has no ob_jection for quashing the proceedings aglrinst tlrc pttitiorrcr.

¶41

Today, both the parlies arc prcscnl bclbrc this Court and they were identificd by thcir rcspecrive counsel.^.fhis Court, when examined, both thc parties havr. statcd that at the instance of the elders and rvell ri,ishcrs ol horh thc parties, they have settled the latler out ol the Coun ancl the second respondent stated that she has rccei'ed thc atnount ancl she has no objection for quashing the procce-dirrgs againsr thc pr.tirioner.

¶42

¶43

4 In Gian Singh r'. Statc of'I'unj:rb and anotherr, the Apcx Courl hcld that thc pou e r o1' the tJigh Courl in guashing a criminal procecding or FIR or cornplaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and difl-erent from the power given to a crirninal coufi lor conrpounding thc ot'tences under Section 320 of the Codc. lnhererrr pori er is ol- rvide plenitude with no statutory lirlitation lrut it has to bc excrcised in accord with the guidelinc engraflccl in such poucr r, iz: (i) to secure tlre ends of justice or (ii) to prcr cnt abLrsc ol' tlrc process of any Court. In what cases powcr t() qr.rash rhe criminal procceding or complaint or F.l.R may be crcrcist-d ri he rc thc of-findcr and victirn have settled their dispute rvoulcl dcpr-nd on thc lacts and circumstances ofeach case and no catcqor\ can he prescribed. However, before exercise o1'such poirr.r. the I{igh (lourt rnust have due regard to the nature and^grar itr ol'thc crin.rc. llcinous and serious offences of mental dcpravitr. or ol'lcnces like murdcr. rape, dacoity, etc cannot be littinglv tlurrsirccl cr cn thouqh the victin-r or victim,s family and the ollindcr have sctricd rhc dispute. Such offences are not pn"atc ln naturc and havc scr.ious irnpact on society.

¶44

' 1Z0tZ1^{t0 Srrplrrnc( ()uTlLlsci l()l}

¶45

¶46

<br>

¶47

Similarlr, anl corrprorllise between the victirn and <lffendcr in relation to thc ollences under special statutes like prevention of Corruption z\cr or the ol-fcnces committed by public servants while work ing in rhat capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis Ibr quashine crin'rinal proceedings involving such offences. But thc criminal ciiscs having overwhelmingly and pre-dorninatingly cir il IlavoLrl sland on diflbrent footing for the purposes of quashing, l)arlicLrlarly the offences arising from commercial, llnancial. nrcrcantilc, civil, parlnership or such like transacl.ions or thc ollences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the tanrilv dispures rvhere the wrong is basically private or pelsorral in natLrrr-. and the parties have resolved their er-rtire dispr-rte- ln tlris category olcases, Lligh Court may quash criminal procccclirrgs il in its Yicw, because of the compromise betweerr the o1'lcntler end victint. the possibility of conviction is remote ancl hlcak and corrtinr.ration ol criminal case would put accused to sreat opplcssion lnd prejudice and extreme injustice would be causcrl to hiru bl not quashing the criminal case despite Iull and cornplctr. sclrlenlcnt and compromise with the viciint. In othcr. uords. the llish^('our1 rnust consider whether it would bc untrir

|^--'

/.,/

or contrary to thc intcrcst oljustice to continue with the criminal plocccding or continuation oi the criminal proceeding would tantalnount to abusc of process of law despite settlement and comprontisc betrveen the victim and wrongdoer and whether to securc thc ends ol' justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and il the answer to the above question(s) is in al'llrnrative, thc rrigh court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the crimirral proceedings.

¶53

5.^'laking into considcration the Judgment of the Apex Court rel'erred to ahovc and the fact of settlement arrived at between the parlies. I.A.Nos. I and 2 of 2022 are allowed. Consequently, the Crirninal Pcrition is allow,ed and the proceedings in Crime No.9ii8 ol 20ll ol' Ilanjara I Iills police Station, Hyderabad are herc.b), quashed against the petitioner/accused. As a sequel, the rniscellaneous petitions, il- any, pending in the Criminat petition

¶54

shallstancl closcd

¶55

¶56

Sd/.P.PADMANABHA R EDDY ASSISTANT REGI TRAR //TRUE COPYil To SECTI FFICER 1. The lll Additional Chief Metro politan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer , Banjara H ills Police Station, Hyderabad 3. TelanganaTwo CCs to(our)Public Prosec utor, High Court at Hydera bad for the State of 4. One CCto S Rl. T BALA MOHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to S Rl. MD. NAZEERUDDTN KHAN, Advocate [OpUCl 6. 7 Two One Spare CD Coob tesopy

¶58

(Along with a copv of Memo of undersranding) q!{.,

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310612022

COMMON ORDER

r.A. NOS. 1 AND 2 0F 2022

¶63

ln/ and

¶64

CRLP.No.13688 of 2014

¶65

,,/a:'4.'-_'
o.'
23 AUE 20U
(-1
*
+
S)-p-6.TC

¶66

AI-LO\VING THE CRL.PETITION AND I.A. NOS. I ANI) ] OF ]O]]

¶67

cl o
.V

¶68

il
q1 t 0 I
.._
N
1 AL 1-01241
Sooh'ea TELANGANA
I TIM E,RS TANDING ( ^=--r^2..::',<br>lu l'JACAiIAJAI'/lANl
uzh{'---T I 'renseC St:nrp Vender
k4 Ra i ).i.. i b -i f -it 1.J11999
tl I 4l'--l t r:,r: ltr-li 033/?-i10
-'Tu'oLlp'&xuk&t$iuu or tJI.IDERSTANDIn'G !s .rnsd.e gt4;EISSlS$o,^, r.
ii r;;r;rl rbail, llyderabrd (So.,J!,.) Distrrct
'- on thrs 416......... S..#da-'y.of.Mar ch 2022 by and between: Phonc llo:9s SS Cg 61 45
Srnt! Kakarla Geetha Rani \r/o Kokarla S nivasultt, aged about 48 years' occ:
Ilogewife, PJo NBT Nagar, Road No t2, Banicra I{ilts' Illderabad'
(Tohe h.erein caLlcd the PARTY OF THE FIRST ?ART" rt'tdvill mean and include
tlt",tghcit's, sutcessLn's and lcgdl repr'ientativer) j
\rrrt. Erukala Vanam Kaveri W/o Ertriiala Vancm Ptrllirialr' age''l about 50 years'
o.. El'lo,,r.*if", R/o l-3-80/3B' Ncar Shiridi Sai Bab'r 'lctnple' Jnrnbira Colony'
Mcdak

¶69

(Toite lterein collecti"-el1'^{allu!the PARTYOF THESb:C'Oi'i D PAR'|' and will} treog ancl include^{theit'heit's.succcssorsai:l legal rept'esottqli:es)}

¶70

¶71

I h.ri thc PARTY OF^{'tllE SECONDI)ARTlod;reJ} I^{a coruplaintrr ithPS} \R f OF' Tl lE FIRS'I^{I'i'\lf I halborlorvcdatt} ts.lrfaral{ills,^{statingthat the Pl} amo{rnt of Rs.^{3,20,000/- from thePARTYOF THE SIICbNDPARTThat rvhen} I

¶72

¶73

/a-

¶74

the repaid, PARTY the pAOI IHE SECOND pART went to request the money she lent to be \ O[ TLM FIRST PAR'I pickcd up a quarrel witb her and abused her rvith regard o her caste

¶75

No. Taking 988these fa ts J onro record the the pS under Sections 3(lXX) BafljaraHillsol the SC/ST registered Act, a case i989. vide That FIRno lnvestlgachargesh been filed in the preseut mntter and the same is still pending at orving to rhe said Irllt the pAItT OF I-IIX FIRST pART atso prelerled No. 1i688 of 20t4 under Section 482 CRPC to quash the proceedings in I,IRlCr. No. 988 of 20li rrrd thr: same is pending adjudication

¶76

That norv the pjnies herein ha, :::i: +^{il ; : ;: ;il: il; J: i; ffi;;", .::i .i:i#J"dfl} 1i: r#x,Ll! agreed to sertle the presenr disDute for an anlount "f n". iO,OOTOOOI- to be paid by the PARTY OF THE FTRST PART to the pAR.t.y OF TIIE SECOND pART. That "OO the PARTY OF TIJE FIRST p..\ RT has alreadlr paid * ""r"'"f n". 1,40,000/to rhe pARTy OF 1.HE SltCO)iD PART anJ ifr,. is express rrcknowledgernerrl ot lhe sr.mc.

¶77

NOW THIS DEED OF IVIE\I()R-{NDf M OF UNDERSTAI\DING WITNESSETH AS F()LLOWS

¶78

l. That rhe^p.Al{tyOF TIIE FIRST p..\t{]. has hereby paid the balance of amounr ro the rune otRs. 60,000/- to the pAItT OF THe SSifON; pARf.

¶79

That the^pAI{T OF Tlllr SECOND l,AllT has received the balance of amount ofRs. 60,00()/_ duly and confirms rhe receipt oithe samei

¶80

In lieu ol thc payrnent of the I brl r,rce f,nrounf rhe pART OF SECOND PART hereby undefirkes to rvithdrarl, the c rst slre iras insritured against the pART

¶81

¶82

OF THE FIRST^{p,^.Rl'} through Cr. 988 ol' 2013 pending on the file of PS B anaj arahi ll s .

¶83

That to give efl'cct to clause (3) ofthe present MOU the party ofthe first^part agrees enter appearance in CRLP No. 13688 of 2013 before the Hon'ble I{igh Court and also to file a compromisc petition and appcar before the LOK ADALAT as directed by the Hon'ble Court and agree to con)promise and^rvithdrawal of the Cr No. 988 of 2013.

¶84

That the terms of this MOU shal) bc binding upon both the^parties and any deviation from the sarne will oblige the oth,rr part)' to initiate lcgal action.

¶85

Witnesses
W
2.
DJUP,'-^

¶86

k^{c-.*-l^:Aq} Party of the fir'st part ,9 .)⁷⁰ OJU^?)R Party of the second part

Kakarla Geetha Rani v. State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakarla Geetha Rani v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panja V.S.K. Harsa Murthy Vs Smt. P. Lakshmi and 2 Others

Smt. G. Kausalya , Laxmi Vs G. Anji Reddy, and Another

Shiva Kumar Vs a.Pradeep Kumar

Vayugundla Ramesh Vs the State of Ap., Rep Byits P.P and Anothrs

Smt.K.Vasudha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mrs.P.Vijitha, Hyderabad and Anr., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.