Allowed

Rachuri Vijay Suman v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Aug 2022CRLP/4560/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act pending against petitioners in C.C. No. 5887 of 2021. The court allowed petitions for quashing, withdrawal of accusations, and recording of compromise based on an amicable settlement and payment of maintenance. Criminal Petition No. 4560 of 2022 was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 5887 of 2021, allowing withdrawal of accusations, and recording of compromise.

Rachuri Vijay Suman Vs The State of Telangana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND^DAY OF^AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE^{CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶6

l.A.Nos. 2 and 3 ol 2022

¶7

In/And

¶8

c RIMINAL PETITION NO:^{4560OF 2022}

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4s60 OF²⁰²²

¶10

Betwee n:

¶11

Rachuri Vijay Suman, S/o.^{R. Bhaskar,Aged about 39 years, O-cc. Private} Services, fl.'No. lqtZSq, East^{Kothapeta,Madanapalle,Appa Rao Street,} Chittoor, A.P. - 517 325.

¶12

2 Smt. R. Dhanalakshmi, W/o. R.^{Bhaskar, Aged about 53 years, Occ.} Housewife, H.No. 141284, East^{Kothapeta, Madanapalle,Appa Rao Street,} Chittoor, A.P. -517 325.

¶13

3 R. Bhaskar, S/o. late Subbaiah,^{Aged about 69 years, Occ- Retd. Employee,} H.No. 141284, East Kothapeta,^{Madanapalle,Appa RaoStreet, Chittoor, A.P.} - 517 325.

¶14

4 Smt. Divva. W/o. Surendara, aqed about^{31 years.Occ.Housewife, R/o.} n.ruo. 2i4, Bhagya Pristine, C^{Bloct, 204, Dodda Kannehali.Mainroad,} Booanhalli-560103.

¶15

Peiitioner No.1^permitted to represent^{as GPA Holder for Petitioner No.2 to 4} (Petitioner/A1 to represented petition 2 to 4 as GPA^Holder)

¶16

(As oer Court Order dated.20.07.2022 in l.A.No 5 in Crl.P No.4560 of 2022 betitioner^{t has been declaredGPA Holder for Petitioner No.2 to 4)}

¶17

...Petitioners/Al to^A4

¶18

AND

¶19

1 The State of Telangana, represented^{by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of} Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶20

. . . ResPondenUCom Pla inant

¶21

2 Nalboth Bhargavi, W/o. Vijay^{Suman Rachuri,Aged about 34 years, Occ'} Private Job, Rt o. 1o-1 -448, Chintalbasti,^{Khairathabad, Hyderabad'} Telangana - 500 004.

¶22

...Respondent/De-facto^Complainant

¶23

Petition under section 482 of^{cr.P.cprayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the [\rlemorandum of^{Grounds of criminal Petition. the High court may}

¶24

be pleased to call for the records in C.C. 5BB7 of 202'1 pending before Xlll Additional Chief [Vletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the^{petitioners/A1} to 44 and Quash the same in the in the interest of justice or other order/s as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶25

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶26

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 further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/Al to 44 in c.c.5BB7 of 2021 Xtll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶27

Common CTs in l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 in Criminal Petition

¶28

Between:

¶29

Nalboth Bhgrgayr, W/o. Vrjay Suman Rachuri, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Private Job, Rl/o. 1O-1-448, Chintalbasti, Khairathabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004

¶30

...Petitioner/Respondent No.2 (De-facto Complainant)

¶31

AND

¶32

Rachuri Vijay Suman, S/o. R. Bhaskar, Aged about 39 years, Occ.^private Services, H.No. 141284, East Kothapeta,^- l,/adanapalle, - Appa Rao Street, Chittoor, A.P. - 517 325.

¶33

2 Smt. R. Dhanalakshmr, W/o R Bhaskar, Aged aboul 53 years, Occ. Housewife, H.No.^'141284, East Kothapeta, tr,,4adanapalle, Appa^-Rao Street, Chittoor, A.P. - 517 325.

¶34

3 R. Bhaskar, S/o. late Subbaiah, Aged about 69 years, Occ. Retd. Employee, H.No. 141284, East Kothapeta, Madanapalle, Appa Rao Street, Chittoor, A.P. - 517 325.

¶35

4 Smt. Divya, W/o. Surendara, aged about 31 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 234, Bhagya Pristine, C Block, 2O4, Dodda Kannehali, Mainroad, Boganhalli-560'1 03. (As per Court Order daled.2O.O7.2022 in l.A No.5 in Crl.P.No.4560 ot 2022 petitioner't has been declared GPA Holder for Petitioner No.2 to 4)

¶36

... Res ponde nts/Petitioners/A't to A4

¶37

5 The State of Telangana, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶38

...RespondenUComplainant

¶39

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶40

Petition under Section 320⁽⁶⁾ Read with^{482 of Cr.P.C prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof Criminal Petition,the} High Court may be^pleased to^{grant permission to withdraw the accusations} made against the Respondents/Petitioners(A1^{to 44) in C.C. 5887 of 2021 Xlll} Additional Chief Metropolitan^{trilagistrate,Hyderabad.}

¶41

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶42

Petition under Section 320⁽²⁾ Read^{with 482 of Cr.P.C prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{Affidavit and Joint lr,4emoof Compromisefiled} therewith, the High Court may^{be pleasedto recordthe compromisein C.C.5BB7} of 2021 on the file of Xlll^{Additional Chieft,4etropolitanlVlagistrate,Hyderabad} against the Respondents/Petitioners(A^{1 to 44).}

¶43

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2022

¶44

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P.Cprayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay} be^pleased to^post the^{Crl.P No.4560 of 2022 under the captionfor being} mentioned to dispense with the^{presenceof Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 / AccusedNos.} 2 to 4 and the above^{quashpetition may be allowed.}

¶45

This Petition coming on for^{hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal Petition and^{upon hearingthe argumentsof sri N. Hanuman} Naik, Advocate for the Petitioners^{in criminalPetitionand Respondent Nos.'t to 4} in l_A.Nos.2 and 3 0f 2022^{and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the} Respondent No.1 in criminal^{Petition and Respondent No.5 in l.A.Nos.2and 3 of} 2022 and of M/s Nalboth^{Bhargavi,Advocate for the Respondent No.2in} Criminal Petition and^{Petitionerin l.A.Nos 2 and 3 of 2022.}

¶46

The Court made the following:^{COMMON ORDER}

¶47

tEEHqNIEI/1DIB-JUSaIQECITUJ'.4I(lI'8jiuI{-4L-41H4 I.A.Nos.2 and^{3of 2022}

¶48

InlAnd

¶49

CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNo. 4560 2022}

¶50

COMMON^ORDEIi

¶51

Secking^{thc Court to quashthe proceedings that arc} pending against^{thepetitioncrs, who are arraycdas} accused^{Nos.l to 4 in C C'No'5887of 2O2l|naL is pending} on the fitc ol^{thc Courtof XIil AdditionalChief Metropolitzr-n} Magistratc,^{111'dcrabad, thc present criminal petition is} lilcd

¶52

Hcard rhc^{snbmission of lcarned counsclfor thc} petitioncrs,^{Icarncd Assistant Public Prosecutor'who is} reprcscnting^{rcsponcicrt tNo l , as well as learned counseI} for rcsPondcnt^{No.2 '}

¶53

Learne ri t:ounscl^{for the petitioners submits that the} dispule is^{malrimonial innature, the matter issettled} bctq,cen thc^{pzrrtics. [he tcrms ofseLtlementare also} rccordcd in^{rvrittrrg and Lherefore, in the light ofthc} colnpromisc^{arrivctl at.rccordingthccompromise thc} procceclings mal^{bc qtlzrshcd' Learned AssistantPublic} proscculor clid not raisc- anv ob.icction^{for honouring. thcir}

¶54

¶55

request. I.A. Nos.2 and 3 ol 2022 are filed to the same c ffcct

¶56

'I'he offcnccs alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are under Section 49g_A of I.p.C and Sections 3 and 4 of rhc l)or.r,ry prohibition Act. As the dispute, even as pclthe material that is available on record, is purely matrimon ial in naturc and as there is amicable settlement betr,r,een thc partics, this Court is of the view that no purposc r.r.ould be served even if the proceedings are permitted to be continued. Hence, this court considers desirable to quash the proceedings, as prayed for. 5. Resultantll,, recording the settlement between the partics, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 as well as the criminal petition arc allou,etl and thc proceedings that are pending against the pctitioners in C.C.No.5Bg7 of 2O2l that is pending on rhc filt: of the Court of XIII Additional Chiel Metropolit:rn Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶57

As a scqucl, miscellaneous petitions pending, if aJ, shall stand closcd. /

¶58

SD/.M.MANJt'LA DEPUTY REGISYhAR //TRUE COPYtt {// SECTION OFFICER

¶59

To, 1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Women Police Station, CCS., DD., Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶60

One CC to Sri N. Hanuman Naik, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s Nalboth Bhargavi, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the Joint Memo) tutvtK SW \ Y

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210812022

COMMON ORDER

l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 ln/And CRLP.No.4560 of 2022

¶67

lrri S14 >^ ,t:
k
)
a)
D 11 AUE Wn
r.)
*

¶68

ALLOWING THE l.A.Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2022 AND ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶69

@X(Y,

¶70

,l
,7
I

¶71

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶72

CRL.P No. l l ( 6- oF ?022

¶73

AGAINST

¶74

c.c. 5887 0F 2021

¶75

( XIII Addl. Chief t4etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad)

¶76

BETWEEN:

¶77

(1) Rachuri Vijay Suman S/o R. Bhaskar Aged about 39 years, Occ: Private Services, H.No. 141284, East Kothapeta, Madanapalle, Appa Rao Street, Chittoor, A.P. - 517 325.

¶78

(2) Smt. R. Dhanalakshmi S/o R. Bhaskar Aged about 53 years, Occ: housewife, / H.No. l4l2\4, East Kothapeta, Madanapalle, Appa Rao Street, Chiftoor, A.P. - 517 325.

¶79

(3) R. Bhaskar S/o late Subbaiah

¶80

Aged about 69 years, Occ: Retd. Employee. H.No. 14/284, East Kothapeta, Madanapalle, Appa Rao Street, Chittoor, A.P. - 517 325. I

¶81

(4) Smt. Divya W/o Surendara, aged about 31 years, Occ: housewife, R/o H.No. 234, Bhagya Pristine, C Block, 204. Dodda Kannehali, Mainroad, Boganhalli-560103.

¶82

... Petitioners/Al to 44. AND

¶83

(1) The State ofTelangana, / Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Courl of T.S. t

¶84

... Respondent/ Complainant.

¶85

(2) Nalboth Bhargavi ffo Vijay Suman Rachuri Aged about 34 years, Occ: private job, R/o 10-1-448, Chintalbasti, Khairathatr.rd, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 004,

¶86

Rcspondent/De-facto Complainant.

¶87

]OINT MEMO OF COMPROM ISE

¶88

Vx, 'i'"rt

¶89

ats qlrt +lbl&e-4., ftti td,p t" , +. q.

Vu^{t)e^^} &{L-l

VJ64

JOINT MEMO OF COMPROMISE

¶94

That the Petitioners/A1 to 44 are husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister,in-law, respectively, of the Respondent No.2/defacto complainant, and they are arraigned as 41 to 44 in C.C. 5887 OF 2027 on the file of XIii Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered under Section 498A IPC and U/s 3 & 4 of D.p. Act, pending for the Appearance of the Accused.

¶95

It rs respectfully submitted that, with the intervention of elders, well wishers, the matrimonial dispute is amicable setued out of th{r court betvveen the petitioners/A1 to 44 and the Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant and agreed between both the parties to obtain divorce by mutual consent and both the parties herein agreed, that both the parties settled all their claims and disputes and the Petitioner/Al agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh and fifty thousand only) towards maintenance of minor baby girl namely Charanishritha and permanent alimony & maintenance for life time to the Respondent No.2/de facto complainant, in two equal instalments as full and final settlement of her claims past. present and future, as such the petitioner/Al paid Rs-1,75,000/-, to the 2"d Respondent/defacto complainant (i.e,

( ,^$ Vv
V U

ent

tdwt

"{a1>r

Rs.1,00,000/-^{DemanddraftNo738878' dt'01-06-2022drawn} on Citi bank^{and cash amountof Rs 75'000/-')and the second} part amount of^{Rs.1,75,000/- shall be paid on the date} administration^{of oathon filing examination chiefbeforethe} family^{couftHyderabadin mutual divorce petition'}

¶104

It is^{respectfullysubmitted thatthe Respondent No'2/de-facto} complainant^{assuredthatshe shall appearbefore the competent} courts to^{withdraw and get compounded pending cases i'e' C'C'} 5887 OF^{702! on the file of XIiI Addl' ChiefMetropolitan} Maqistrate,^HYderabad'

¶105

Therefore^{the matteris amicablesettledout of the court} between the^{petitioners/A1to A4 and theRespondent} No.z/defacto^{complainantas such filed thepresent petitionto} Quash^{the proceedingsin C'C' 5887 OF 2O2l XIII Addl' Chief} Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Hyderabad'}

¶106

Hence this.loint^{Memo of Compromise signed on this 3 day of June'}

¶107

2022 at^HYderabad.

¶108

Irt 1")L \ .: uJtiuon"r.ltr..rrua.'/^{counselforPijlrrers/Accuserl'} ^" "t, Respondent^{ruo.2./&{iito Complainant} [*lcounsel^{for Resp' No'Zlde{actoComplainant}

Rachuri Vijay Suman v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachuri Vijay Suman 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

S.Sivarama Reddy and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Shailendra Goje Vs The State of Telangana

Samala Narsimha Reddy Vs State of Telangana

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

Prasad Anukonda , Anumukonda Thirumala Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Bayya Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana