Allowed

Bayya Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Aug 2022CRLP/6291/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed petitions under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. and 320 Cr.P.C. to quash pending criminal proceedings (CC No. 5720 of 2021) against accused in a matrimonial dispute involving offences under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, noting that parties had reached an amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in CC No. 5720 of 2021 are quashed upon recording of the joint memorandum of compromise.

Bayya Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

LA.Nos. 3 ANDF 4 OF 2022 IN /AND

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:6291 OF 2022

¶8

l.A.Nos. 3 ANDF 4 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. Pavana Rekha @ Lasya Priya, W/o. Bayya Ramesh Aged 23 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-5-1090/A, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Narayanguda, Hyderabad.

¶11

..PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

Bayya Ramesh, S/o- B.Balaiah, Aged 34 years, Occ. Police Constable / Government Employ. Rt/o.H,No.2-2-1 166/fuD/1 , Chaitanya Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶15

Smt. Bayya Neelamma, Wo. B.Balaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ. Housewife, Both Ryo.H-No.2-2-11 66lNDl1, Chaitanya Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 320(6) 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 permit the petitioner/ Respondent No.2 to compromise the case in CC No. 5720 of 2021 of WPS, CCS, Hyderabad which is pending on the file of Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad .

¶19

l.A. NO: 4OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petltion,the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise of the petitioner/ Respondent No.2 and

¶21

accused^persons in CC No.^{5720 o't 2O21 of WPS, CCS, Hyderabad which is} pending oi the file of Xlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Hyderabad} '

¶22

CRIMINAT. PETI TION NO:^{6291 OF 2022}

¶23

Between:

¶24

Bayya Ramesh, S/o.^{B.Balaiah,Aged34 years, Occ.Police Constable /} Go'vernment Employ. R/o-H.No.2-2-11661ND|1,^{ChaitanyaNagar,Tilak} NaEar, Nallakunta, HYderabad.

¶25

Sml. Bayya Neelamma,^{Wo. B.Balaiah' Aged6o years, Occ. Housewife, Both} R/o H.N6.2-2-1¹ 66lNDtl1, Chaitanya^{Nagar, TilakNagar'Nallakunta,} Hyderabad.

¶26

...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.^{1 & 2}

¶27

AND

¶28

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its PublicProsecutor, High Court for the} stat,: of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶29

Sml. Pavana Rekha @^{Lasya Priya, W/o. Bayya Ramesh Aged 23 years,.} Occ. Housewife, Rio.-H.No.3-5-1090/4,^{Laxmi Nagar Colony, Narayanguda,} Hyderabad.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in thd lr4emorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the Highcourtmay} be pleased to^quash the^{proceeding in CC.No-572012O21o't W.P.S'C C S,} Hyderabarl which is^{pending on the file of Xlll Additionalchief Metropolitan} Magistrate,, Hyderabad.

¶32

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶33

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in thecircumstances} stated in lhe Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Courtmay} be please,d to stay of all further^{proceedings including appearance of the} petitioner n CC No. 5720 of 2021 ot WPS, CCS, Hyderabad which^{is pendingon} the file of .(lll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,^Hyderabad.

¶34

These Petitions coming on for hearing,upon^{perusingthe Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and^{upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOHD} MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN ,Advocate for the^{Petitioners andCrl.Petitionand} Respondent No.2&3 in l.A.Nos. 3 & 4 of^{2022 and the PublicProsecutoron} behalf of the Respondent No.1 in l.A.Nos.^{3 & 4 of 2O22 and Rspondent No-1in} Crl.Petitiorr and of MR. KHALEED BIN SAYEED^{Advocatefor the Respondent} No.2 in Crl.Petition and Petitioner in l.A.Nos.^{3 & 4 ol 2022 .}

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

( t

¶37

THE HON'BLE DR.^{JUSTIC E CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶38

I.A.Nos.3 and 4^{of 2O22}

¶39

Inl And

¶40

CRIMINAL^P ETITIO^{N No.629l2022}

¶41

COIlIMON ORDER.

¶42

Seeking the Court^{to quashthe proceedingsthat are} pending against the^{petitioncrs,who are arrayedas} accused Nos.1 and^{2 inC.C.No -5720 of 2O2 1 that is} pending on the file of the^{Court o[ XIII Additional Chief} Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Hyderabad, the prcscnt criminal} petition is filed.

¶43

Heard the submission^{o[ lcarnedcounscl for the} petitioners, learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor, who is} representing respondent^{No.1, as well as learncd counsel} for respondcnt^No.2.

¶44

Learned counsel lor^{thc petitioncrs submitsthat the} dispute is matrimonial^{in nature, the matter issettled} between the^{parties, the terms of settlcrncntare also} recorded in writing^{and thcrcforc, inthe light of the} compromise arrivcd at,^{recording the compromisethc} proceedings may be quashed.^{LcarnedAssistantPublic} Prosecutor did not raisc^{any' objcction for honourinS.,their}

reqrrest. LA.Nos.3 and 4 of 2022 are filed to the same effe:t

¶49

The offences alleged to have been committed by the peti:ioners are under Section 49g_A of I.p.C and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry prohibition Act. As the dispute, even as per the material that is available on record, is purely matrimonial in nature and as there is amicable settlement betu,een the parties, this Court is of the view that no purposc u,ould be served even if the proceedings are pcrm ittcd to be continued. Hence, this Court considers desirablc to quash the proceedings, as prayed for. 5' Resultantry, recording the settlement between the pa-rtie:s, I.A. Nos.3 and 4 of 2022 as well as the criminal petition :rre allowed and the proceedings that are pending against thc petitioners in C.C.N o.ST2O of 2O2l that is pendir-rg on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶50

1\s a sequel, miscellaneous oetitions pen-dng, !f aqy, shall stand closcd

¶51

To,

¶52

SD/-P.PADMANABHA REEDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// rti SEcTIbN oFFIcER

¶53

1 The )(lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally , Hyde rrabad.

¶54

The S,tation House Officer,WpS,DD, police Station , Hyderabad.

¶55

Two OCs tg.lrlb_lic prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanoana. ar

¶56

¶57

One CC to SRt. MOHD MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN Advocate [OpUC]

¶58

One CC to MR. KHALEED BIN SAYEED Advocate [OpUC]

¶59

Two CD Copies

¶60

One Spare Copy

¶61

¶62

(along with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise)*

CDL t!k

HIGH COURT

I t

DATED:0210812022

COMMON ORDER

l.A.Nos. 3 ANDF 4 OF 2022 IN /AND

¶70

CRLP.I\o.6291 ot 2022

¶71

1Yl: s14f c
21 SEP
?trfr
>az
,+
*-

¶72

ALLOWIN(I TI.IE CRIMINAL PETITION

v
N

HIGH COI'RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAI{A^{AT HYDERBAD}

¶77

I.A.No oF 2022 1

¶78

¶79

cRL.P.No. Ld.ll oF 2022

¶80

¶81

CC. No. 5720 OF 2021

¶82

(On the file of Hon'ble XIII Addl. C.M.M, Hyderabad)

¶83

Between:-

¶84

Smt- Pavana Rekha @ Lasya Priya,

¶85

W/o. Balya Ramesh

¶86

Aged 23 years, Occ: Student,

¶87

R/o: H.No.3-5- lO9o/A, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. ,Petitioncr

¶88

AND

¶89

The State of Telangana,

¶90

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

¶91

High Court for tl-re state of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶92

2- BaTya Ramesh,

¶93

S/o: B.Balaiah,

¶94

Aged 34 years, Occ: Police Constable/Government Employ.

¶95

Smt. Ba'tya Neelamma,

¶96

W/o: B.Balaiah, Aged 60 years,

¶97

Occ: Housewife,

¶98

Both R/o.ll.No.2 -2-lL66lAlD /7, .^Y'-r,r!$' "^.., Chaitanya Nagar, T ak Nagar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. .:.. RespcindentsRespcindents

¶99

.:.. RespcindentsRespcindents

I 1

JOINT MEMo

May it please your Honour,

¶105

It is submitted that tie Petitioner/Respondent No.l and^the Respondents/A.No.1 to 2 have settled the matter amicably out of the court in the above said c.ase and in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 does not want to proceed w:th the above case and she does not have any objection to quash the proceedings in the above said case.

¶106

Therefore it is^prayed that this Hontle Court may be^pleasedto permit th(: Respondent No.2 and the Petitioners/A,No.1 to 2 to compromise the case in CC.No.572O/2021 of W.P-S. C.C.S, Hyderabad which is pending on the file of XIII Addl. Chief Metropotten Magistrate, Hyderabad and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble court nlay be deems frt and proper in the circumstances of t-I.e case.

¶107

1 CL

¶108

l"'

¶109

Signature of .Respondent No.2. Counsel for spondent No.2

No.1 to 2

c A.No.1 to 2

HYDERABAD

w"}\

ltiII t I II I I t

l<sup>-oo-zozz

Bayya Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bayya Ramesh 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

Rachuri Vijay Suman Vs The State of Telangana