Allowed

KurumpallySrishailam and 2 Others v. State of Telanagana and another

Telangana HC16 Dec 2022CRLP/3694/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed the criminal petition to quash FIR proceedings where the complainant and accused had married and were living together. The court found the allegations were based on a consensual relationship that evolved into marriage, rendering further investigation useless.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings against petitioners in FIR No.95 of 2020 registered at PS Kulkacherla, Vikarabad are hereby quashed.

KurumpallySrishailam and 2 Others Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3694 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 . Kurumpally Srishailam S/o. Sri. Kurumpally Kistaiah

¶8

Kurumpally Mallesh Goud, C/o. K.Kistaiah

¶9

Kurumpally Mallamma, W/o. Sri. Kurumpally Kistaiah

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No. 1 to 3

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telanagana Represented by SHO, Kulkacherla Police Station, Vikarabad district. Through Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

¶13

Mala Suvarna, D/o. Mala Mallaiah, Occ. Student. Aged about 27 years, FJo. Rampoor Village, Kulkacherla lt/andal, Vikarabad District.

¶14

..RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶15

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 proceedings in FIR No. 95 of 2O2O dated 1310812020 of PS Kulkacherla, Vikarabad in the interest of^justice .

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances staied in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispensing with the filing of the Certified Copy of the FIR No. 95 of 2020 in the interest of^justice or otherwise the Petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and damage which may not be compensated by any means.

¶18

l.A. NO: 2OF 2021

¶19

Petition undr'^' Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that ir th 3 circumstances stated in the N,4emc andum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, tre tligh Court may be pleased to stzr / all further^proceedings in FIR No. 1')5 of 2020 dated 13lOAl202O of PI Kulkacherla, Vikarabad incluCing the arrest of the Petitioners/Accuseci pending hearing and disposal of the nra n Oriminal^petition in the interest of^jusr ice.

¶20

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition unde'Section 320 (6) R/w Sec 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stat: d in the Memorandum of Grounds of^(lr minal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file f elitirrn to, compound the offences and to quash the Proceedings in FIR Nc 95/202I '-ogistered by the Police Kulkacherla, Vikarabad District initiated against the :r:cu;,:d No. 1 to 3 in the interest of^justic )

¶22

l.A. NO: 2OF 2022

¶23

Petition unde r Section 320 (2) R/w Sec 482 ot Cr.P C pr;rying that in the circumstances stat, d in the Memorandum of Grounds of^,lrrminal Petition, the High Court may bt: pleased to compound the offences as p,er the compromise memo and to quas' the proceedings in FIR No. 95/2C20 rer;i:iter,:d by the Police Kulkacherla, Vikar; bad District initiated against the accuserl ir the interest of justice.

¶24

This Petitiorr coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Crimin rl Petition and upon hearing the argun ents; of Sri DEEPAK IMISRA, Advocate :r the Petitioner and the Public ProsecLr:or rrn behalf of the Respondent No. 1 ; nd of Sri Sourabh Agarwal, Advocate for lhe, Respondent No. z.

¶25

The Court made tl" : following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3694 OF 2O2l

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Petition is illed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.95 of 2020, dated 13.08.202O of P. S. Kulkacherla, Vikarabad.

¶30

A complaint was lodged by the 2",i respondentl defacto complainant stating that she was in love with the 1.r petitioner/Al for the past live years and she had physical relation with him. The lst petitioner deceived her by promising to marry her. When'he 2"i respondent was asking him to marry, he stated that he would rnarry her after he gets a job. When there was a marriage alliance for the 2"d respondent, the lst petitioner inflicted injury on the left side of his chest ald pretended that he would die if she does not marrJr. Thereafter, the 1"t petitioner got^job in the police department and a-fter completing his job training, he started insulting the.2^d respondent in the name of caste and refused to marry her stating that she can go and complain to any one. For the said reason, written complaint was lodged on 13.08.2020. The said complaint was registered for the offences under Sections 376, 417, 42O, 506, 509 r/w 1o9 IPC, 3(1)(r)^(s), 3(2)(Va) of SCs & STs^(POA)Act, 2015.

¶31

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits lhrrt the crime has to be quashr:l on two grounds. Firstly, the corrrplaint does not reveal any for :ib1e acts of rape but consensual sr:x. between the 1"t petitioner anc the 2"d respondent. Second'l],, the I^st pretitioner and 2nd responde rt married and are now staying t.<:,ge1-her. The l"t petitioner an I the 2"d respondent appeared br:frrre the Legal Services Com nittee in the High Court premises anrl report was also filed by the Si :cretar), stating that they have appt:i,rrt:rl and parties were identifier

¶33

Section 164 Cr.P.C statement ol the !]",i res1.on,lent and her mother was a so liled. The 2.d respondent on I O. ):.i',O20 appeared before the Jr Lnior Civil Judge at Pargi and stat ec. that the 1"! petitione r acquainted and they decided t() m €Lrry after he completeci his; iob training as police constable.^{'flrr:r,:afr-er,} u'hen she informed her mother that in the last stage of his training, the lst petitioner waj not speaking to her properiy, a cornl:kiint was made to the police. After returning from training, shr: married the 2"a respondent ar d they are living together, for whict, rearion, she does not want any rroceedings to be continued against the 1st petitioner. She further ..;.ated that they did not have anv sr:.,lual intercourse nor the lst pe itioner abused her in the name of ,:zrste. The mother

¶34

¶35

of the 2"d respondent was also examined on the very sarne day in which she stated that when the defacto complainant/2"d respondent informed her that the 1"t petitioner was not speaking with her, they approached the elders, who advised to give a complaint. However, the marriage was performed and they a!e living together. She further stated that since the couple is living happily, they do not want to proceed with the case.

¶36

It appears from the record that immediately after lodging of the complaint and on conclusion of training as police constable by the lst petitioner, the lst petitioner and the 2"d respondent got married and living together. Though the criminai complaint was lodged and the process of investigation had commenced, on account'of the marriage of the lst petitioner and the 2"d respondent, no further investigation was carried out except recording of the statements of the 2"d respondent and her mother.

¶37

At the very initial stage, immediately after ttre complaint was lodged, the l"t petitioner and the 2"d respondent have married and no useful purpose would be served if the investigation is asked to be completed, which would only consume the time of the police and also the other government departments for testing of FSL reports etc.

¶38

¶39

The Hor 'ble Supreme Court in the^juctgmenl or- Kapil Gupta v. State of N )T of Delhi and others [Criminal lt;rpr:al No.1217 of 2022, dated 0.08.20221 held as follows in a ra:r: czrse when the parties appror ched the Supreme Court

¶40

" 16 In b,: th the cases, though the charge sheets have treer hled, the charges are^.et to be framed ald as such, the trial has not ye I c,rrnmenced. It is further to be noted that since the Respondent No.2 he:-self is not supporting he prosecution case, even if the criminal tda i!. permitted to go ahcad, it ,viil end in nothing else than an acquittal. If tlrc re(Blest of the pa-rties is d, nied, it will be amounting to only adding on: rnorr: criminal case to the : lrcady overburdened criminal courts."

¶41

As seen from the facts of the case, there is no allegation that the 1"t pet .tioner had forced the 2d re:spondent f defacto complainant rt any point of time and committed rape on her. The only grievanc : is that during the hnal stages of his training as a police conste ble, lst petitioner refused to mafly. However, after returning frr m the training, they got married and are living together. For the reason of the l"t petitioner and r-he 2"a respondent being in cons )nsual relationship, this Court deenrs it appropriate to quash rhe pr lceedings and also in the back groLrrld of the parties being marrie,: and living together.

¶42

For ther aforementioned reasons, the proceet.iings against the petitioners//, I to A3 in FIR No.95 of 2020 or ttLe file of PS, Kulkacherla, Vikarabad, are hereby quasherl.

¶43

¶44

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. As a sequel

¶45

thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, sha-lr stand closed.

¶46

Sd/. L. SIVA PARVATHI

¶47

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' k SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Parigi, Vikarabad District.

¶50

The Station House Officer, Kulkacherla Police Station, Vikarabad

¶51

One CC to SRl. DEEPAK MISRA Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

One CC to SRl. SHOURABH AGARWAL, Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

Two CD Copies vH/ 1,

HIGH COURT

KSJ

DATED: 1611i;12022

ORDER

I
\9
/.
",.1 , r{E ST4 N,j:.<br>//;'
/,:*
lro - ]
? I 0E[ 2122
lr\( f,l
.' .:1
' + i'
;Pa't:c"r4

¶60

CRLP.No.36| 4 of 2021

¶61

Allorving the C' irninal Petition

¶62

q.7
..-r,
,.X

KurumpallySrishailam and 2 Others v. State of Telanagana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

KurumpallySrishailam and 2 Others v. State of Telanagana 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

Smt.Yadavalli Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Mohsin Khan Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Csk Realtors Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Nadeem Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Mohammed Waseeq alias Md. Wasik Vs The State of Telangana

Balla Raj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana, And Another