Allowed

Bodanapu Mastan Vali v. The State of Telangana Through P S Kphb

Telangana HC3 Aug 2022CRLP/1702/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses three petitions seeking to compound offences and quash criminal proceedings for Section 498-A IPC and Section 498-A IPC (likely typographical variations for 498-A) in a matrimonial dispute. The court found the dispute to be purely matrimonial with an amicable settlement and allowed the petitions, quashing the pending proceedings.

What did the court decide?

I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2022 and Crl. Petition No. 1702 of 2022 allowed; proceedings in C.C. No. 3793 of 2021 quashed.

Bodanapu Mastan Vali Vs The State of Telangana… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

I I tI I I I

I I

I I Ii i i I i I

I i

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶8

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶11

t.A NOS.2 AND 3 0F 2022

¶12

AND

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1702 OF 2022

¶14

t.A NOS.2 AND 3 0F 2022

¶15

BETWEEN:

¶16

Smt.Shyny, Wo. Bodanapu Mastan Vali, ASed about 37 Years, Qgc.Teacher,Rl/o.MlG^{499, Sri Tanuja PG Women'sHostel,Flat No. 406, MIG -499,} 4"' Road , KPHB Colony, Hyderabad .. Petitioner / Respondent No. 2

¶17

And

¶18

Bodanapu Mastan Vali, S/o.B.Pedda Siddaiah, aged about 34 Years, Occ. Software Engineer, presently residing at Symphony Park Homes, Villa No. 41 Lane No. 10. Beeramguda, and Native is H.NO. 1/ 87, Dalavaipally, Pullampet Mandal,Kadapa. Andhra Pradesh - 516 107 .. Respondent /Petitioner /Accused in both The State of Telangana Through P S KPHB, Rep by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad. .. Respondent /Respondent

¶19

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶20

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 to compound the offence under Sec. 498-A of lPC., Sec 4 & 6 of D.P. Act in Crime No. 475 of 20'21 dated 07 -06-2021 against the Petitioner/Accused and it was numbered as CC.No. 3793 of 2021 on the file of Honourable ll Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum - X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kukatpally

¶21

l.A. NO: 3OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 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 record the compromise between the parties for offence under Sec.

¶23

¶24

498-4 of rpc., sec 4 & 6 0f D.p. Act in crime No. 475 0f 2021 dated 07 /o6t2021 against the Petitioner/Accused and it was numbereJ ". cc.No. 3793;i ,di-;; the fire of Honourabre , Additionar .lunior iivii JJog" -"u, -X Additionar Metropolitan MaS,istrate, at Kukatpally

¶25

Crl.P. No. 1 7O2 of 2022

¶26

Between:

¶27

Bodanapu Mastan Vali. S/o.B.pedda Siddaiah, aged about 36 years, Occ.pvt., Emptoyee, RIo.H.No. r -87, oatavaipalrv, FJirJ,"'plt [,t'#oj,n"o"p".

¶28

...PETITIONERYACCUSED

¶29

AND

¶30

1 The State of Telanqana Through p. S. KPHB, Rep. by public prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

¶31

Smt.Shyny, \N/o. Bodaneou_ Mastan Vali, Aged about 37 years. occ.Teacher,R/o.Mtc 499. s.i ranuJJFo wt]"Lnr'ililt"l, Road No.4, KpHB colonv, Road No.S, Kukarparv, Ransa pahip;th,Hariana. neooy-lna i.'ri"i'iLi u.r.rii)'db, satnrar coronr ...neip-di.i'ijEr.ry"','r'

¶32

Petition under Section.4g2 of .Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar F"iit,on, the High court mav be preased to quash the cc No. 3793 of zozr ." ti,"'iir" "r in. ii'nl6i cr."i Petitioner/Accused Addl' Metroporitan Maoistrate Kukatpa[y^-cvo"r"ouo as "g"i;ri-'th"

¶33

NO: oF 2022

¶34

Petition under Section.4€2 of .Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or criinrnai Fetition,the High court mav be..pleased to grant sray of _al rr119, o-".uoing" i""r"ii"i ;;;;;;;" ".i petitioner herein in cc No. 3793 0f 2021 0n *"fri;; the , AJCJ Cum X Addr. Metropolitan Magistrate Kukatpally CVOeraUaO, ;n}ng disposal of the main criminal petition.

¶35

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. RAJASHEKAR ,Advocate for the petitioner in crr.petiaon and Respondent in I A Nos' 2 and 3 0f 2022 and the pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No. 1 in crl.Petition and Respondent in l.A.Nos_ 2 and 3 or 2o22 and of Sri B. sRrNrvAS Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in crr. pet;tion and petitioner in l.A.Nos. 2 AND 3 OF 2022.

¶36

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

u I

I I : i

i ! I i i I i

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶41

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 20.22

¶42

IN/Ar{D

¶43

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1702 of 2O22

¶44

COMMON ORDER:

¶45

Seeking to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner/Accused in c.c.No.3793 of 2o2r that is pending on the file of the court of II Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Cyberabad, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

¶46

I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed seeking the Court to permit ttre petitioner/respondent No.2 to enter into the compromise in c.c.No'3793 of 2o2L that is pending on the file of the court of II Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Cyberabad.

¶47

I.A.No.3 of 2022 is liled by ttre petitioners/respondents seeking the Court to record compromise and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3793 of 2O2L that is pending on the Ille of the court of II Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Cyberabad

¶48

¶49

Dr. CSI-J Crl.P.No.l702 of2022

¶50

4 . Heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused as well as the learned Assistant public Prosecutor a-nd learned counser for respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused as well as respondent No.2/defacto complaina,t submit the dispute between the parties is purely matrimonial in nature and, indeed, after registration of the case, both the parties entered into an Agreement and settled the matter amicably and, therefore, perqgission may be accorded to compound the offences.

¶52

The Report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Serrrices Committee, Hyderabad, is on record, which goes to show that identification of the parties is done. The Report also reveals that both the parties stated that they have willfully and without any coercion entered into a Memoraldum of Compromise.

¶53

7 . Haring regard to the said fact and also as the dispute is purely matrimonial in nature, this court considers it desirable to honour request ofthe parties to quash the charge sheet.

Dr. CSI-J C.i.P.No.l702 of2022

¶59

Resultantly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 as well as the Criminal Petition are allowed. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioner/Accused in c.c.No.3793 of 2o2r on the file of the court of II Additional Junior civfl Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Cyberabad, are hereby quashed.

¶60

9 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly, shall stand closed.

¶61

¶62

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶63

//TRUE COPY// -4

¶64

SEcno(bFFIcER

¶65

1 T_he ll Additionat Junior Civil Judge cum X Additionat Metropolitan 2 if"'t",'{,:";,lJ}s:'61*""i?"Jfi^{Bt"ffi'E jii,*,[T,:s;;} Ranga Reddy District.

¶66

3 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court at llyderabad for the State of Telangana (OUT)

¶67

4.5. 9n" One CC 99 to^{lo Sri} SRI.^B. K. RAJASHEKAR^{Srinivas, Advocate} Advocate^(OpUC) [OPUCJ 6. Two CD Copies 7. One Spare Copy KUL

Ald,

I Ii I

i I I i I I ll

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310812022

COMMON ORDER r.A. NOS. 2 AND 3 0F 2022 AND

¶75

CRLP.No.1702 of 2022

¶76

liL STAf(
2 E 0Et ?[?2
.t +/
"'..r-'l

¶77

Allowing the Crl.Petition

Bodanapu Mastan Vali v. The State of Telangana Through P S Kphb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodanapu Mastan Vali v. The State of Telangana Through P S Kphb

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

Sri Ramneesh Garg and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Prasad Anukonda , Anumukonda Thirumala Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Rachuri Vijay Suman Vs The State of Telangana

Pagadala Narasimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sourav Sen Vs The State of Telangana

Arnab Sen Vs The State of Telangana