Allowed

Dara Veklesh Raj v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Jul 2022CRLP/2287/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana quashed criminal proceedings in C.C. No.2277 of 2020 filed under IPC 498A DP Act. Based on a joint compromise memo verified by the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, the court allowed the petitioners to compound the offences subject to the payment of Rs.10,000 to the Advocates Association.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.2277 of 2020 were quashed subject to payment of Rs.10,000 to Telangana High Court Advocates Association.

Dara Veklesh Raj Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

rN rHE^{HIGH couRlf8$rtl*=o?t#EoF TELANGANA}

¶5

.l,B'+:JS^=^lJX''"JSi^i'++J"

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE^{HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE K'LAKSHMAN}

¶8

l.A. os. AN^30F2022

¶9

o N No: 2287^OF2022 cRI^MINALP

¶10

l.A.^{No. 30F2022}

¶11

Between:"";,*t}",{r,i,txfii#iilr""Y'fi

¶12

Htxi:'?iii'xi};?i[3"'iff3"?:&::3'-"

¶13

COMPLAINANT ...PETITIONER/DEFACTO

¶14

AND

¶15

,,P,ili#[:,:-"""{d,{;r.fHr1il##,fffFf,^{:i"'faJ::'fi ;..oi::"'$:?'r}

¶16

,tT{",iyr:{:f,ffi ff";#[,fi#,.,lst#:fl $]:f ,Hf,:irgnxili"?331 &.2 ".PETINONER/ACCUSED

¶17

".PETINONER/ACCUSED 3. The^{State of Telangana'Represented by its PublicProsectrtor' High Court at} .'.RESPoNDENT'^RESPoNDENT Hyderabao.

¶18

A.N^o:3OF2022

¶19

n the^{circumstances} raying^{that i} h Court^may Petition^{unde r Section320(2)of Cr.P.CP} lPetition ,the^Hig between^theP etitioner^and tated^{in the Memo randum of Grounds} ise^{of accordedCrimina} No.^2277of rd the^comprom in C.C.^No' ased^{to reco} be ResPonPle dents the file^{No. of'1} and^xlll 2^Additionat and^{quashChief the MetroPolProceed ings} itan^Mag istrate,^NamP ally^at 2O20,on ces Punishab^{le under Section 49BAof IPC and section 4} Hyderab^{ad. for the o{fen} and^{6 ofD.P. Act.}

¶20

CRIMINAL^{PETITION NO: 2287 0F 2022&1. A.No.20F 2022}

¶21

Between:

¶22

Dara Veklesh^{Raj, S/o. D. KrupadanamAg^edabout 32 vears'Occ Private} Em:tovee. Fl/o.^{H.No.aO1,'pfii rio.e, SaiSuphala Arcade, Manjeera Bank,} Pragatlri Nagar,^{KPHB,Kukatpally, Hyderabad'}

¶23

2, Smr. D.^{Krupadanam, W/o. D. Krupadanam^} 4SeO^{about50 years'.Occ'} -ffo,ise"ite, Aotn'are nlo. ff.'(o. eO+, pt6t Nlo.e, Sai-suphala Arcade, Man.ieera b';;[-^{jradathiNagar,KPHB, Kukatpallv,Hvderabad'}

¶24

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED^{1 & 2}

¶25

AND

¶26

1 Th,:StateofTelangana'RepresentedbyitsPublicProsecqtor'HighCourtat nyrerJnao. ...RESPoNDENT

¶27

2 Snrt. Thomaspappy^{Annie Sowjanya,W/o' Dara Veklesh Raj} '^{Aged about28} ;;;. o;. iliviid^{emprovll,'nid'*.No.B-2-2e3tg2t1te,S'V' Nagar' Road} i.lc. 14, Bajara^{Hills,HYderabad}

¶28

...RESPONDENT^{No.2/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT}

¶29

PertitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P.CprayinEthatinthe.circumstances stated in the^{Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the Highcourt may} u" prlu."o toto^{quashthe proceedingsin c.c. No. 2277 of 2020,on the file of} Xlll Additional^{Chief Metropolitan Migistrate,Nampally at Hyderabad._forthe} oif"n"".^{punishable under lection4ggA of lpc and section 4 and 6 of D.P.Act} against the^{petitioners/AccusedNo.1 and 2 '}

¶30

t.A. NO ;1 0F 2022

¶31

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the High court may} be pleased to^{grant stay of all further proceedings in C'C' t{o} f.o^{227..7 of} ZOZO,or the filJ of Xlll^{hdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at} iyOeiat,aO. for^{the offences punishable under Section49BAof IPC and section4} unoo.,tD.P.Actagainstthepetitioners/AccusedNo.,land2herein,pending disposal of the main^{criminal petition.}

¶32

t.A. NO 20F 2022

¶33

F,etition under Section^{320(6)of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated n the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminal Petition,the Highcourt may} ne pre"s"a to^{permit me to compound the offences registeredunder498 of-lPC,} and' se,ction 4 and 6^{0f DP Act in C.c. No.22770t 20200n the file of Xlll} Additio ral chief [r/letropolitan^{Magistrate,Nampally at Hyderabadagainst} accused No.1 and 2/respondent^{No.1 and 2 herein.}

¶34

ThesePetitionscomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriARUN KUMAR L ,Advocate^{for the Petitionersin crl.Petition and Respondent Nos'1&2} inl.A.No.3of2022andthePublicProsecutoronbehalfoftheRespondentNo.3 inl.A.No.3ot2022andRespondentNo.linCrl.Petition&l.A.No.2of2022and ofSriJ.P.SRIKANTHAdvocatefortheRespondentNo.2incrl.Petition&l.A.No. 2 of 2022^{and Petitioner in I'A'No 3 of 2022}

¶35

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶36

TEIE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶37

I.A.Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2022 I D CRIMINAL PETITION No.2287 0F 2022

¶38

COIY{MON ORDER:

¶39

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 492 of Cr.p.C by the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2277 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned XIII Addirional Chief Mekopolitan Magistrate, Nanrpally at Hyderabad.

¶40

During the pendency of the present Criminal Petilion, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.Z-de facto complainant filed I.A.l{os.2 and 3 of 2022 to permit to compound the offences and to compromise the matter.

¶41

Vide order dated 13-03-2022, this Cour! after

¶42

recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petilioners as well as respondent No.2, directed the parties to

¶43

appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, on or before 27_02_2022 for their identification and also directed the Secretary to submit a report by 21-03-2022. In compliance with the said Order, the Secretary has submitted his reports dated 31_05_2 022 and 29_06_ 2022.

¶44

In the report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, it is stated that in obedience of the orders dated 29_04_2022 and 24_06_2022, the petitioner No.1 and the 2.d respondent have appeared before him on g1-05-2022 and the pefitioner No.2/accused No.2 appeared before him on 29_06_2022, along with their counsel and on examination and verification of their particulars from their Aadhar Cards, they were tallied. Thus the identification of both the parties has been established.

¶45

The parties herein have filed a joint memo of compromise stating that at the intervention of the elders, they

¶46

I-

¶47

¶48

hav,: settled the disputes between them amicably and 2.a resp,ondent has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in the above C.C.No.2277 of 2020. The said joint memo of compromise and the report of the Secretary are placed on record.

¶49

In view the said report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and also in view' of the cornpromise entered between the petitioners and respondent No.2, I.A.Nos.2 and Z of 2022 are allowed. Con-';equently, the criminar petition is alrowed and the procr:edings in C.C.No.2277 oI 2020 pending on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed, subject to paynlent of an amount of Rs.10,000/_(Rupees Ten Thousand Ody) in favour of Telangana High Court Aclvocates, Assor:iation, Hyclerabaci within ten (10) days from today, and file proof of the same into the Registry.

¶50

{

¶51

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall

¶52

stand closecl.

¶53

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REqISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

secrrort"6ir[cH

The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad.

¶58

The Station House Officer, WPS Police Station , C.C.S, DD,Hyderabad.

¶59

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

¶60

One CC to SRl. ARUN KUMAR L Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to SRl. J.P.SRIKANTH Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

The Secretary, Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad.

¶63

Two CD Copies

¶64

B. One Spare Copy

¶65

(along with a copy of Joint memo of Compromise)

¶66

COST MEIT/O:

¶67

Note: Amount paid by Sri. ARUN KUMAR L, towards imposed by Cost of Rs. 10,0 00i-(Ten Thousand Only) to Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad.

¶68

Receipt No.58206 Oate:11 lO7 12022

CDL \ .b/ ,,/ r'l\

HIGH COURT

DATED:0110712022

COMIIION^ORDER

l.A.Nos.^{;2 AND 3 OF 2022} IN/AND CRLP.No.2287^{of 2022}

¶74

.a
t
j o5 sEp iln

¶75

ALLOWTNG^{THECRIMINALPETITION}

lt,!II

I 1

I ,- I i

I i l tl

rj I

&-.o,.S

rN THE HrGH Coj.yllluDrcAruRE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE SIATE OF TELANGANA

¶84

BETWEEN: cRL.p No. .)){)or zozz

¶85

nara Viklesh Raj S/o. D. Krupadanarn Aged about 32 years, Occ: private Employeg

¶86

Smt. D. Krupadanam Wo. D. Krupadanam Aged about 50 years, Occ: Housewife,

¶87

8.oth are R/o. H.No. 304, plot No.B, Sai Suphala Arcade, |aljeera^{Bank,pragathi Nagar, KpHB,} t(ukatpally,^-_-', Hyderabad.

¶88

...^{petitioners/Accusecl} 1&2

¶89

Arrd

¶90

The State of Telenqana. Rep by its public pTosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶91

Smt. Thomaspappy Annie Sowjanya, Wo. _Dara^{Veklesh Raj , agedaboui 28 years,} occ:.private Emptoyee, R./o. H. No. a-z- -iii) iz t t t s,

¶92

S.V. Nagar, Road No. 14, Bajara Hiffs, ffyOeraij

¶93

...... Respondent

¶94

...Respondent No.2/ Defacto Complainant

¶95

JOINT MEMO

¶96

It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 & 2 and respondent No.2 has amicably setfled their issues out of the court by entering into Memorandum of Understanding dated 05-11_2021 and the respondent No'2 has no objections to quash the proceedings in c.c. No. 2277 0f 2020 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad against petitioners No.1 and 2/accused No.1

¶97

and 2 hereln and to^{passsuch other order or ordersas thisHon'ble}

¶98

Court may deem fit and^{proper in the circumstances of the case'} )- DAna Y rqt€3H W ,.., N./{.\

¶99

) 7, Y-,-1^a-;=r"n-",' Petitionersl &2 / Accused^{1 & 2} Respondent No.2/Defacto^Complainant

¶100

¶101

4J {-

¶102

CounselforthePetitioners/AltoA2CounselfortheRespondentNo.2

Dara Veklesh Raj v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dara Veklesh Raj 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

Smt. Naseeha Vs State of Telangana and another

Smt. Pambanda Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Pambanda Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Azeemullah Qureshi and 5 others Vs The State Of Telangana and another

Mohammed Akheel Vs Mohammed Abdul Waheed

Chintalapelli Ram Reddy Vs Seva Eslavath