Allowed

Racherla Rajender v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Aug 2022CRLP/3562/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition and an interim application to quash proceedings pending under C.C. No. 950 of 2021 involving petitioners accused of matrimonial offences. The Court held that since the parties had entered into an amicable settlement, the dispute being matrimonial in nature, the proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition and I.A. No. 3 of 2022 allowed. Proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C. No. 950 of 2021 quashed.

Racherla Rajender Vs The State of Telangana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

l.A.No.3 ol 2O22 AND

¶6

RIMINAL PETITION NO: 3562 OF2 021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Racherla Rajender, S/o Racherla Limbagiri (A1 ) aged about 45 years, occ. nil Ri/o H No.LlG-103, Huda Colony Attapur, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy, Telangana

¶9

D. Arvindraj Varma (A2) S/o late D. Satyanarayana, aged 43 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee Fl./o H.No.11-13-484121520 Sri Krishna Homes, Alkapuri, Yadavanagar Colony, Nagole, L.B-Nagar, R.R. District, Telangana.

¶10

Racherla Shiva Kumar S/o Racherla Limbagiri (A3), aged 43 years, Occ: Private Employee, Rl/o H.No.4-9-78l1 , Huda Colony, Attapur, Rajendrangar, R.R. District, Telangana.

¶11

Racherla Limbagiri S/o Late Ramaiah (A4), aged B0 years, Occ: Nil, FVo H.No.LlG-103, Huda Colony, Attapur, Rajendranagar, R.R. District, Telagnana.

¶12

Smt. Polakonda Rajini Wo Polakonda Srinivas (A5), aged 44 years, Occ: Housewife, Ri/o H.No.1-3-183139122, Padmashali Colony, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad, Telangana.

¶13

(As per Court Order dated 1 0.08.2022 in l. 4.No.412022 in Crl. P. No .356212021 petitioners/Accused No.2 to 5)

¶14

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1 to 5

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The State of Telangana, represented Public Prosecutor (through PS Rajendranagar Police station) Ranga Reddy district. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

¶17

z) Smt R Manasa, W/o R Rajender Varma, Aged 30 years, R/o H NO LIG-103 Huda Colony, Aftapur Rajendra nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist Telangana

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶19

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 Quash the charge sheet in CC No 950 of 2021, on the file of the XIV

¶20

,/ Additional Metropolil rn Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Re ddy District, in so far as the Petitioners/A< :used No.1 are concerned.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

¶22

Petition unde Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that irr the circumstances stated in the Memor rndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, '.lrr: High Court may be pleased to stay of : I further proceedings including appeara'ce of the Petitioner/ Accused.l in CC N^, 950 of 2021 , on the file of the XIV lrrlditional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendri nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶24

Petition unde^- Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that n the, circumstances stated in the Memor rndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hi-qh Court may be pleased to permit I re petitioner/defacto complainant to c,) 111)rornise in C.C.No. 95012021 on the I le of the Hon'ble court XIV Addl. Me I r,rpolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Rajer deranagar for the alleged bffences pu"l shable 498(A),r/w 34 IPC section 3 and 4 cf DP Act.

¶25

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶26

Between:

¶27

R. Manasa, V /o R Rajender Varma, Aged 30 years, R/o t'l NO LIG-103 Huda Colony, Attap rr, Rajendra nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist T{)l€rr)gana

¶28

...PETITIONER/DE:F I,,::TO COMPLAINANT

¶29

AND

¶30

State of Tela gana, represented Public Prosecutor, HiEl'^rloLrt, Hyderabad

¶31

1. Racherla Raj :nder, S/o Racheda Limbagiri (A1) aged erl:r>ut 45 years, occ. nil F/o H No.LI l-103, Huda Colony Attapur, Rajendra^rl;:rgar, Ranga Reddy, Telangana

¶32

D. Arvindraj '^'arma (A2) S/o late D. Satyanarayana, ager:l 43 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee^{I l/oH.No.'1 1-13-484121520Sri Krishn: Homes, Alkapuri,} Yadavanaga Colony, Nagole, L.B.Nagar, R.R. District,^--t:langana.

¶33

Racherla Sh^ya Kumar S/o Racherla Limbagiri (A3 ,, . erged 43 years, Occ: lnyqlg^{EmO >yee, Rl/o H.No.4-9-78l1, HudaColony, ,^ttbpur, Rajendrangar,} R.R.District, elangana.

¶34

Racherla Lir bagiri S/o Late Ramaiah (A4), aged 8(t '/ears, Occ: Nil, Rl/o H.No.LlG-10 Huda Colony, Attapur, Rajenclrana3ar, R.R. District, Telagnana.

¶35

Smt. Polakonda Rajini W/o Polakonda Srinivas (A5), aged 44 years, Occ: Housewife, Fi"/o H.No.1-3-183139122, Padmashali Colony, Gandhinagar, secunderabad' Telangana

¶36

...RES'.NDENTS/'ET',.NERS

¶37

Petition under Section 320 (2) R/w 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 the petitioner/defacto complainant to compromise in C.C.No.950 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar for the alleged offences^punishable 498(A), rAlV 34 1PC, section 3 and 4 of DP Act.

¶38

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. K. Anitha, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri G. Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶39

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶40

THE HC N'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR :'r:IMALATHA

¶41

I.A.No.3 of 2022

¶42

AND

¶43

)RIMINAL PETITION No.3562 ol 2t'.t27

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

Heard ,earned counsel for the petitior.r:rs, the iearned Assistant Pu^,lic Prosecutor, who is represr:ntirrl; r-escondent No.1 -^{State, as rvr ll as learned counsel for responclerlNo 2.}

¶46

Seeking to quash the proceedings that ar: pending against the petitionr^-s, who are arrayed as Accus()rl Nc,s.1 to 5 in C.C.No.950 tf 2O2l that is pending bef<rlr: the Court of XIV Addition rl Metropolitan Magistrate, RajerLi.ralagar, Ranga Reddy Distrit , the present Criminal Petition is filed.

¶47

Learnet counsel for the petitioners as rvell. as learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the dispute is matrimonia-l n nature and after registration ol tbe c:ase, the wife ,^{and husband entered into an amicable settlement: aJtd, therefore,} the petitioner; and respondent No.2 intend to gt:t the case closed, and hence, t:spondent No.2/defacto complajn,ttlt has moved a separate app ication vide I.A.No.3 of 2022 seeking permission of

¶48

¶49

¶50

Dr. CSL., Crl.P.No.3562 of202l

¶51

this Court to enter into compromise and thereby to quash the proceedings.

¶52

A perusal of the material available on record justifies their submission that the dispute is matrimonial in nature. As amicable settlement is arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that their request can be honoured. Further, the report of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, is on record, which discloses that the petitioners and respondent No.2 made a submission that they have willfully and without any coercion entered into memorandum of compromise .

¶53

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not raise any objection whatsoever to quash the proceedings basing on the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶54

Resultantly, I.A.No.3 of 2022 is ordered and consequently, Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.950 of 202 1 before the Court of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed.

¶55

Dr.⁽ SL,J C1 I' No I ;61of202l

¶56

¶57

¶58

As a se 1uel, miscellaneous petitions pt:rr<ling, if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

¶60

SD/-N. RAJ GOPAL ,{li i l:STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The XIV Adc tional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabac, liajendranagar. 2. The Station I louse Officer, Rajendranagar P.S., Rajen<l'i,rnagar, Cyberabad. 3. One CC to S nt. K. Anitha, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to S i G. Narasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CCs to re Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sterte of Telangana at Hyderabad. )UTl 6. Two CD Col es 7. One Spare⁽ cpy gbr E

HIGH COUR T

DATED: 181C812022

.-..ai -,
()A'
,/ (
::
lt I i1'] fll1
c,J
t'
<br>--:.:-z

¶65

ORDER

¶66

l.A.No.3 of 2rt22 and

¶67

CRLP.No.35t 2 ot 2021

¶68

ALLOWING I HE CRL.P ref,\0{t4 "e-

Racherla Rajender v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Racherla Rajender 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

Kurumilla Ajay Vs Vangapally Thirumala

Kasireddy Bhaskar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

D.Vijay Deepak Vs State of Telangana

Harish Rawtani and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Musuku Pranay Vs Ailuri Brahma Reddy

Purnakanti Naveen Vs The State of Telangana