Allowed

Chada Ramesh Chander Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Nov 2022CRLP/260/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed interim applications to quash and stay criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC following an amicable settlement between parties. Noting no caste-motivated abuse, the Court quashed the charges of the petitioners in Crime No. 235/2021.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against petitioners in Crime No. 235/2021 were quashed; no arrest or coercive steps were taken; pending cases closed.

Chada Ramesh Chander Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

f .A.Nos. 7 and I ot 2O22 IN/AN D

¶6

CRIM|NAL^pETtTtON NO: 260 oF ZO22

¶7

l.A.Nos. 7 and 8 of 2022

¶8

Between

¶9

Chada Kishan Beddy, S/o Dasaratha Reddy Aged about 46 years, Occ_ Business, R/o. Shali Gouraram, Nalgonda oistrict.

¶10

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. Chada Ramesh Chander Reddy, S/o Venkatarami Reddy Aged about 64 years, Occ- Business R/o.Plot No.405, KGR Sai Aksnaia Apts, B iane, D.D.Colony, Near Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 013

¶13

Sri Ramadasu Raju. -S/o Sri_Ramadasu Achari Aged about 44 years, OccContractor, R/o.H.No.3-15/1, Shali Gouraram Mand;1, Nalgonda District.

¶14

Sri Ramadasu Anantha Chary, S/o Sri Ramadasu Raghava CharyAged about !!^{y?1r?, Occ-. Driver, R/o.H.No-3-18t2, Mark6tyard,Shjti 6ouraram} Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶15

Vadla Korrda Saidulu, S/o. Ramaswamy , Ata 48 years, Occ- Sagar Water Works, R/o.H.No.8-27, Thumalarayinigldem, Shati Gouraram,^"Nalgondi District.

¶16

Sri Ramadas! Mallikarjuna,.s/o. Sri Ramadasu Narasimha Char. Aged about 9.5.^{years, Occ- Driver. R/o.H. No.6-2511,Marketyard} Shali Gouraram, Nalgonda District.

¶17

Bandaru Ve-nu, S/o. Not Known, AJa 56 years, Occ-Agriculture, R/o. Shali Gouraram, Shalilingotam, Nalgonda District.

¶18

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1,3,4,5,6 & 7

¶19

7 The State ofTelangana, Bepresented by its^public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana Through P.S. Shali Gourararirr Nalgonda District

¶20

.. - RESPONDENT/RESPONDNT

¶21

l.A. NO:^{7oF 2022}

¶22

.tateo PetitionunderSection320(6)ofCr.P.CpraylngthatintheCircumstancesii'ii i^{Hl]"e,ro,"nournot -C"'*not of Criminal Petilron'the High Courtmay} be^{pleased To pelmrt tn" piiilnt'- dRespondentNo 2 who is Defacto} Conrplarnant^{torecord tne.-"ompromis"a19 t?comiound theoffence} ^^--^^,,a^rr,^{rn 2corlitthe oeti";;;; bt recording the compromise thereby to} ;:::;'H:':;",""^{.,'oi' u' Iesizo2lor P s shaliGouraram 'Nalsonda}

¶23

l.A. NO:^{8oF 2022}

¶24

l)etiliontrtrdcrScction320(2)olCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircunlstanccsstatedinthe i,lcrnoratrclttm^{ol Groundsol Criminal Petilion'the High Court may be pleasedTo pcrmit the} pctitioner aud^{Ilespoudcnt No-2 rvhois Defacto Complainantto record the compromise and} to conrpoun,.l^{thc ollencc consequentlyto acquit thepetitioncrbl recordingthe comPromise} thereb-v^{to qtrashthcabove saidCrNo J235/2OZ|ofPS ShaliGorrraram'Nalgonda}

¶25

C RIM INA^{L PETITION NO: 260oF2022}

¶26

Between:

¶27

lChadaRameshChanderReddy,S/oVenka]araml.ReddyAqedabout64vears. occ- Business^{nl" plJi'rl"--+irs'} f-qt^{.q"' AkshaiaApts'B Lane'} b"6e#il.^{li"i-iA.o"'p"tHvderabad - 500 013}

¶28

':'mlti"[i118-iifi^{:S:iiah?:'].i1fi l,f;gio}31n"#010ffi Li:o""'

¶29

3SrlRamadasuAnanthaChary,S/osriRamadas].RaghavaCharyAgedabout 44 vears. occ-^{Driver, xld] 'li t..lo- 3-1812'Marx6tyard shaliGouraram} Man'dal,^{Natgonda District'}

¶30

o8n:i"3b3;?;,i,"ni:,H'"'o'i

¶31

. Xel,;"lli.,il.Jl!;,.,fn,?Sf,lyfl[,;dy"i, District.

¶32

Srr Ramadasu^{Mallika4una'S/o Sri Ramadasu NarasimhaChar' Aged about} 35 vears.^{occ- D Ver. il"i H r\io.+istt} '^{Marketyardshali Gouraram'} Nalgbnda^District.

¶33

6 Bandaru Venu, S/o.^{Not Known,.A'/-a} 99 .years'^{Occ-AgricultureR/o Shali} " 6""1r:l'ii'., snllitinsotam. Nalgonda District

¶34

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED^{No'1'3'4'5'6 & 7}

¶35

AND

¶36

1 The State of^{Telangana' Represented byits Public Prosecutor'HighCourt of} tg o no' o'"t'''t*

¶37

i ffi il:;#^{i ;,} ij^{H p d s"n'" ric'i' i-'ii'i' H} "

¶38

",,X;;lo?loril'

¶39

Chada Kishan Reddy, S/o Dasaratha^{ReddyAged about 46 Years, Occ} Business, R/o. Shali Gouraram, Nalgonda^District.

¶40

.RESPONDENT No.2 /DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶41

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crjminal^Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the^proceedings against the Petitioners /Accused No. 1, 3, 4,5.6 and 7 in Crime No.2351 2021 of P.S Shall Gouraram, Nalgonda District, dated-2411212021 , for the Offences U/sec 143, 448, 4?7.342, 5O4,506 R/w 149 IPC 3(1) (0^(s), 3(2) (v-a) of SC and ST^(POA) Act

¶42

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶43

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 of all the further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioners /Accused No. 1,3, 4, 5,6 and 7 herein in respect of^present case i.e Crime No.235/202'l of Shall Gouraram, Nalgonda District, dated:2411212021 , fot the Offences U/sec 143, 448, 427, 342, 504, 506 R/w 149 IPC 3(1) (r) (s), 3(2) (v-a) of SC and ST (POA) Act, and the Police Shall Gouraram, Nalgonda District, also not to take any coercive steps till^pending disposal of the^present Criminal petition.

¶44

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2022

¶45

Between:

¶46

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor,^High Court of Telangana Through P.S. Shali Gouraram Nalgonda District

¶47

.,RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶48

AND

¶49

Chada Ramesh Chander Reddy, S/o Venkatarami Reddy Aged about⁶⁴ years, Occ- Business R/o.Plot No.405, KGR Sai Akshara Apts, B Lane, D.D.Colony, Near Amberpet, Hyderabad^- 500 013

¶50

Sri Ramadasu Raju, S/o Sri Ramadasu^{Achari Aged about} 44^years,Occ- Contractor, R/o.H. No.3-15/1, Shali Gouraram Mandal, Nalgonda^District.

¶51

Sri Ramadasu Anantha Chary, S/o Sri^{Ramadasu Raghava Chary Aged about} 44 years, Occ- Driver, R:/o. H.No- 3-18/2,^{It/arketyard,} Shali^Gouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶52

Vadla Konda Saidulu, S/o. Ramaswamy, Ala 48^years, Occ-^SagarWater Works, R/o.H.No.8-27, Thirmalarayinigudem, Shali Gouraram,^Nalgonda District.

¶53

Sri Ramadasu Mallikarjuna, S/o. Sri Ramadasu^{Narasimha Char. Aged about} 35 years, Occ- Driver. R/o.H. No.6-2511, Marketyard Shali^Gouraram, Nalgonda District.

¶54

Bandaru Venu, S/o. Not Known, fua 56^{years, Occ-Agriculture,} R/o.^Shali couraram, Shalilingotam, Nalgonda District.^{...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED}

¶55

7 Chada Krishna Reddy, S/o Dasaratha Reddy Aged about 46 Years. OccBusrness, R/o Shali Gouraram, Nalgonda District

¶56

(R7 is not necessary party)

¶57

..RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶58

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,theHagh Court may} be pleased To vacate the interim orders^granted in CrlP No.260/2022 on the file of Hon'ble High Court dtd.71112022

¶59

l.A. NO: 5 oF 2022

¶60

Between:

¶61

Chada Kishan Reddy, S/o Dasaratha Reddy Aged about 46 Years, OccBusiness, R/o. Shali Gouraram, Nalgonda District.

¶62

. -. P ETITIO N ER/RE S PO N DENT No.2

¶63

AND

¶64

Chada Ramesh Chander Reddy, S/o Venkatarami Reddy Aged about 64 years. Occ- Business R/o.Plot No.405, KGR Sai Akshara Apts, B Lane, D.D.Colony, Near Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 013

¶65

Sri Ramadasu Raju, S/o Sri Ramadasu Achari Aged about 44^years, OccContractor, R/o.H.No.3-15/1, Shali Gouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶66

Sri Ramadasu Anantha Chary, S/o Sri Ramadasu^Raghava Chary^{Aged about} 44 years, Occ- Driver, R/o. H.No- 3-18/2, Marketyard, Shali Gouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶67

Vadla Konda Saidulu, S/o. Ramaswamy, Ala 48^years, Occ- Sagar Water Works. R/o.H.No.8-27, Thirmalarayinigudem, Shali Gouraram, Nalgonda District.

¶68

Sri Ramadasu Mallikarjuna, S/o. Sri Ramadasu^{Narasimha Char. Aged about} 35 years, Occ- Driver. R/o.H.No.6-25l'1, Marketyard Shali Gouraram, Nalgonda District.

¶69

Bandaru Venu, S/o. Not Known, fua 56^years, Occ-Agriculture, R/o. Shali Gor-rraram,Shalilingotam, NalgondaDistrict.

¶70

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos. 1,3 to 7

¶71

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana Through P.S. Shali Gouraram Nalgonda District

¶72

.. RESPON DENTS/RESPON DENTS

¶73

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the tvlemorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition,the HighCourtmay} be pleased To vacate the interim order^{dld: 71112022passed in CrlP NO} 26012022 and dimiss the WP in the interest^of iustice^.

¶74

These Petitions coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^Sri BRAHIVADANDI RAMESH ,Advocate for the Petitioners and Crl.Petition and Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in LA.Nos. 7 & 8 of 2O22 and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.7 in l.A.Nos. 7 & 8 ol 2022 and Respondent No. 1 in Crl.Petition and of Sri M.A.K. MUKHEED Advocate for ihe Respondent No. 2 in Crl.Petition and Petitioner in l.A.Nos. 7 & 8 of 2022^.

¶75

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶76

HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶77

I.A.Nos.7 and, 8 of 2022 In and CRIMINAL PETITION No.260 of 2022

¶78

COMMON ORDER:

¶79

Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel appearing for the rcspondent No.2.

¶80

Seeking the Court to qr:ash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners, u,ho are arrayed as Accused Nos. l, 3 to 7 in Crime No.235 of 2O2l of Shali (iourararn Police Station, Nalgonda District, the present Criminal Petition is filed -

¶81

Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that after registration of the case, there is an amicable settlement between the parties and both parties entered into compromise. karned counsel for respondent No.2 states that neither respondent

¶82

Lr ! i; ']]:':rl 'r. i I I .l

¶83

No.2 nor his mcn^{rvereabused in the name of casteb1' the} petitioners artd due^{to trivial disputes,a caseis foisted} against the^{petitioners.Both the learned counselstates} that they moved^{I.A'Nos.7 and 8 of 2022 seekingthe Court} to permit them^{to compromisethe matter and compound} the offences.

¶84

Learned Additional^{PublicProsecutordid not raise} any objection for^{grant of such a relief claimed'}

¶85

In the light^{of the saidsubmission made by the} learned counsel^{for respondentNo.2 that there is no abuse} of either respondent^{No.2or his menin the name of caste} by the petitioners^{herein, this Courtconsiders it desirable} to honour the request^{of learnedcounsel for the petitioners} to quash the^{proceedings. Furthermore, the reportof the} High iourt^{Legal Services Committeeis onrecord} regarding the identification^{of parties.}

¶86

Hence, I.A.Nos.7^{and 8 of2022 are allowed'} Consequently,^{the CriminalPetition is allowed'}

¶87

The procecdings that .ire pcn<lir.rg agixnst the pr:titioners in Crime No.235 oi 20)1 ol'Shali Gouraram

¶88

I)olicr-' Station, Nalgonda, l)isrrict, :rre ltert lt_\ quashed.

¶89

As a sequel, pending miscellaleous applications, if an1,, shall stand closed.

¶90

SD/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIOtii OFFICER

To,

The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nakrekal.

¶95

The Station House Officer , Shali Gouraram^police Station ,Nalgonda District. 3. Two CCs to Additional Public Prosecutor, High Couri for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶96

One CC to SRl. BRAHMADANDT RAMESH Advocate [OPUC]

¶97

One CC to SRl. M.A.K. MUKHEED Advocate [OPUC]

¶98

Two CD Copies

¶99

(along with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise)

A. CI)L

HIGH COURT DT.CSL,J

DATED:10/1112022

COMMON ORDER

l.A.Nos. 7 and I of 2022 , G.<
IN/AN D 3
u? <br>CRL.P.No.26O of 2022 I t,.1
tt,r s c!l
iii
F1JT i; ll
cl a' ,,
'.
ALI-OWIN(i THE CRIMINAL THE CRIMINAL CRIMINAL PETITION
/7,
I\1
(v'
15

¶105

ALI-OWIN(i THE CRIMINAL THE CRIMINAL CRIMINAL PETITION

¶106

l. tl!l^,llr,1l {.itr t:t {ll I i- r)1(: .\l'r lt! ,\1't,ytlilR.,U],\ti t¹ ,:l I tit_^..;-: . I h {il.' , ill.,,{ iA\A 1I l"' i )i toll

¶107

1N '.t, l':l' ,)l ri)ti.t.rreir: 11,12 )1)l_l :l lr|o!:tlt l'.!l !i,rii, (loLIIi:ri],

¶108

,:: t. ,:il i ":

¶109

tlh.ldii^j, i:il, r.:^j.t,tii.i. ),,,1)r.- rr l, r: l1( Li , r\1ttd :ti ,o,tt l,r;^z 1 ;...; 1 1 li-io. ll. r.ilt^,. ,),,i:trrlr1, l.laigoq li: I r.tr :, t

¶110

Peritioner / llespondenr No.2

¶111

d-ii t.)

¶112

I )t..harl.r 1:r,rrc:rlr all:r,r:a-r !i, ilC], li, o /-:tr1r: !i..uiri l.t(:ddv ,\gc:irbo Ll ar i."ei,ri.^(-rci: !lLrs :-:,,: ll/o.1'lo, l.,L;..1():- liilll S:,, :ri:,",^, i> . ll Liir i"'. 1,.:).( 1)iorr), i!.:1..{n!l)::r1., : Ilyd,: ,ti,r, I^jl)i) arll

¶113

2)Sri 1:l.,tutt,i:r-.tr^!.- :r1.r S,r:. :(,^,,, '. i,r: Agcil abtirti 1-l /elr!, t)e.t: ('or: ri_:;t,r. l?,'o.ji lir, r li !,..iiral, (lc,r:rln,r:: .,t..rr-Jll, l\iiil!. 1 , \rr{rr

¶114

-j_)llri^li-.i,1,a, i,-r^..rrrlrlil,( ilrr!, r^.l. t: r'r l',, ;..r l lr ",': l.re't',':Ii., : .' lt'j'.. Ii/o. il.tJ, : I l!':1. .'.ilriL,.i',ir.r1, Shaii⁽ i,rrl,.r.a,-rt h.li|,C-rl. l..iiilcr,n,it iitsrr rcl

¶115

,1)Vadli. li r,,i:! :i,iiL I.r

¶116

.i I - .l^,i. i'.... \irll ,\ltiL't ',rrrrL.. ii o l1.l'.r.,i I ;.^{i irir rr ixli,fa'\ i',!E,',i'iiri} Slrrli^(,. u,lrraitr \j" 1,.(l)J:l i),rrtil( t. ) ) Srr liiIr1-liia!Lr "lalliliaijuila S r,. Slt liatr;arjasu NilrilsiilllrrL^Chlll/ .:'r, I .rl,, ri t^r5 r,:ats.^{(:t,:Lli:rrr-} i, ,r.il.,r.r'r l5 l. I'llrl:ct'.atti. S lr,r lr⁽ irruratitrr .rlg,-rrr,-l I,)ist;'i. i. ())BalldaIu Vcnu S I i'Jol i(ttrt'vrr. ./r./rr 55^veats, Occ:Agr:iculturc. R/{). SIraii^(iouraranr, Sirllilingotan'r, l"valgcnda District . . ...Petitioners/Accused No.Al. /tl.^{A4- r\5. r\6 & ,A7} 7.Thc Stalc ol'Telangara, Rcpresenlcd hy its Public Prosecutor. High Cotrrt of Telangana l-hrough P.S. Shali Gouraram NalgonCa District R cspond:r1!.,/^P.esP( )[dci]t

¶117

IOIN I I,/Ii MO FII.ED OIJ BEHALF OF IHE PETITIONTRS ANO^{2,{C RESPOT"IOET{T}

¶118

l. l-he Pctitioners and the 2nd respondent who is thc Dcfacb' complain:rnt in Crime No.260 o12022 ofPS Shaligouraram alleged under ollenccs U/sec !4i.448,421. 342, 50.1. 506 R/w 149 IPC 3(i) G) (s), 3(2) (v-a) of SC & ST (I'C)A) Act has settlcd thc above casc amicably in respect of the allcged olli:irces. fhc petitioners

¶119

l1!l i l l,:r.'ir rrri-rrisi. irlir,y th,-ir l .r:;[]ii.lifr ltil.l!,l Il(;llltr.,l l l. Ih. parltr{)i:.rs l, ,l !!t^r ..:,,i)ll ti I :ir i,lr, lht.r in thr:j ra!!:-!.(! lhC m?tlarr ilitl o-,::L ;, ttl.ri ai tr- ii,. r;tlt, t, 1...,-:i.ii r! ,.,lt.iii. ..,'., il:() i.ht,t.lO,nriy irltbi:; r..ri,:r Jllr.rtilr,,r-'.,,r.,rr..!rliL,-i:illliilr,:cr:.;L:ftiL:.i .ll,t .f tllc Dortrt iimicir-l)lv

¶120

I r L,r r,l tl^- t (i !r .r.rrr r;ri' ,ri,i,-.:'.tr! l\ r lh,: si,iC :.rintintl caie tl:r,,, ple as'l bt ,1rra:IeC I',y :r!lcu i llr,j I,iiii,i]lt lr\ -., olllii!:t rltl r.-rrns ol- tirc conlpta)lrlsi:

¶121

Herce this Joint Mcmn

¶122

Dati]: -o8-2022
Place Hyt!,:r'abad.
>t-,/
5W v' S'u''/;|1 ' u,u
Peiitiorrrr 1.., I "irr',.,. It--, t-'onrplainari
{. Aqntlt-^' cLt- N.i, tl.-t
Petitionor No.4 i'etitir-,ircI l'1. r i
<.!-lc-a-" '
ir,'a
f.i!il."r-** g*Wnt

¶123

,?. r a
)

¶124

\ "l'r. -- r (,tri,iL i i.jr lllr. l),.ttlr()n,]\

¶125

\ (,i,i:rrr:l lcr r c'i( ,l-r. r(1.-rr

¶126

Chada Ramesh Chander Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chada Ramesh Chander Reddy 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

Kuntala Dayanand Vs State of Telagana

Indukuri Lachiraju Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Dr. Anuradha Vemula Vs The State of Telangana

Chinthapandu Suresh Vs The State of Telangana

Myaka Praneeth Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mothakani Saritha and Another Vs State of Telangana and Another