Allowed

Yadma Sridhar Reddy, And 2 Others v. The State of Telangana, And Another

Telangana HC5 Dec 2022CRLP/861/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following a compromise between the accused petitioners and the de facto complainant, supported by a verified identity report from the Legal Services Committee. The order allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the crime against the accused, subject to the payment of Rs. 10,000 to the Director, Sainik Welfare.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No. B15 of 2019 quashed; respondent required to pay Rs. 10,000 to Director, Sainik Welfare within one week.

Yadma Sridhar Reddy, And 2 Others Vs The State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 861 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Yadma Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Goverdan Reddy, Aged 30 years, Occ. Private lmployee,^{R/o.H.No.2-155!1} <sup>BheemanpallyVillage,Bhoodanpochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District-s08284.

¶8

2 Yadma Sandhya Rani, Wo. Goverdan Reddy, Aged 57 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.H.No. 2-15511, Bheemanpally Village, thoodanpochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District-508284.

¶9

3 Yadma Goverdan Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged 64 years, Occ. Retired RTC Driver, R/o.H.No. 2-15511, Bheemanpally Village, Bhoodanpochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District-S08284.

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No. 1 to3

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. The State of Telangana, And Another, rep., by Public Prosecuto, High Court, Hyderabad through S. H.O, P.S. Saroornagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District,. ...RESPONDENT

¶13

Yadma Deepika, Wo. Sridhar Reddy, Aged 26 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Presently H.No. B-1 -'15lP/46, Plot No. 46, Padma Nagar Colony, Road No.3, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy-S00079.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ol 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 inC.C.No.1700l2O20 on the file of Honorable Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, At. L.B. Nagar arising out of Crime. 81512019, dt.2911112019 of P.S Saroornagar, (Rachakonda Limits), with regard to the alleged offence U/Sec. 498- A, 420,326 IPC sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

¶16

LA. NO: 1OF 2021

¶17

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 all further proceedings in C.C.No.1700/2020 on the file of Honorable Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrte, Cyberabad, At. L.B. Nagar arising

¶18

out of Crinre. 815 of 2019, dt.2911112O19 of P.S.^Saro,)r naga-^(Rachakonda Limits), pendinq drs osal of Criminal Petition and^pass

¶19

This Petrtion coming on for hearing, upon^perusinll the h4emorandum of Grounds of^(lrirn ral Petition and upon hearing thl arguments of Sri RAJESHWAR RA( GARIGE, Advocate for the Petiti ) rer and the Public Prosecutor on beh. f of the Respondent No.1 and of Sr /:lt/lU(lANTl RAMANI Advocate for the R€ ;pondent No- 2.

¶20

The Court made th' following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDE)R

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.861 OF 202L

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.B15 of 2019, on the file of Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station, Rachakonda. The petitioners herein are accused Nos. I to 3 in the said case. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 498-A, 42O, 354, 120-8 of Indian Penal Code(for short 'l.P.C), Section 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 15(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶25

Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

¶26

During the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.2-de facto cortplainant filed a Memo in USR

¶27

No.699O7 l2{ 2⁾ to pe rmit them to compolrnd Llre: o|fences and to cont pr',^,m i e lltt'ci.lsc.

¶28

Vicle or li'r rlatecl 23.11 .2022, this Courl , a ltel recording the submis ions marcle bv the learned c c trrse I for the petitioners a, u'ell as rcspondent No.2, direct,:rl r:he parties to appear befo e the Secretarl', Telangana Hiqh Court Legal Services Con mittt:e, Hydcrabad, for their iclent l t:irtit-'n and also directed the Secretary' to submit a report b-v^()5.12.2022. In complialce r itl-r the said order, the Secretary has submitted his report, on A1 12.2022

¶29

In the r :porl of the Se cretar5r, Telangana^;-jigh Oourt Legal Services Con mittee, Hyderabad, it is statecl thz t iir obedience of the orders laterl 23. | 1.2022, the petitioner; and the 2"a respondent I ave appeared before him along wrth th,:ir counsel and on exar ination and verification of their p zr:'ticulars from their Aadhar Cards, they were ta-llied. Thus thr' idenl ification of both the par es has been established.

¶30

The pa tics herein have fiied a joint memc of ctmpromise stating that^. r c--v have agre,.d among themseh'r s t,> c,rmpromise

¶31

KSI (r r,, s. J,ltlrtal

¶32

¶33

and resolve all the disputes, they have settled the clisputes bcts,een tl'rem amicabl,v and 2n(l respondent has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in the Crime No.8l5 of 2019, on the file of Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station, Rachakonda. The said joint memo of compromise and the report of the Secretary are placecl on record

¶34

In vieu, of the said report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and also in view of the compromise entered between the petitioners and respondent No.2, filed Memo in USR No.699O7 12022 is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed arrd the proceedings in Crime No.B 15 of 2Ol9 , on the file of Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station, Rachal<onda, against the petitioners-Accused Nos.1 to 3 are hereby quashed, subject to payment of an amount of Rs. 10,0O0/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in favour of Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad,^(Savings A/c.No. 521aa926279, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch & 2OO7O, IFSC Code: SBIN002O070, MICR^No

¶35

tt1f\

¶36

¶37

5OOO0,+057) n'ithin^{a periocl of one rveek frotr lodirl', and file}

¶38

proof of thc arne into tl're^Regisltl'

¶39

As a s quel, thc nriscellatreous^Petitions ' Fren(ling^ilany'

¶40

shall stzrnd^t losed.

¶41

SD/- P. F'ITDMANABHA REDDY AS S ISTANT REGISTRAR

/iTRUE COPY'

:lEOTl N OFFICER

To,

The Vl Additi, nal Metropolitan liilagistrate Cyberabad, a [..8. Nagar.

¶47

The Station l- :use Officer, Saroor Nagar Police Station, Saroor Nagar.

¶48

To the Directr r Sanik Welfare, Hyderabd.

¶49

Two CCs to¹ re Public Prosecutor, High Court for the litate cf Telangana, at Hyderabad (( UT).

¶50

One CC to S i RAJESHWAR RAO GARIGE, Advocate OPUCI

¶51

One CC to Sr rt VEMUGANTI RAMANI, Advocate IOFL Cl

¶52

Two CD Copi^rs

HIGH COURT

KS,J

DATED:05t12t2022

ORDER

.za - n'.iN
{1:r}
/ *
A}
l !
--.1)
LI-r a
d
t r.J (^
\
^4',
\ \y
:11,
't..-i )
:::: j'

¶59

CRLP.No.861 ')f 24 21

¶60

ALLOWING TI E C IIMINAL PETITION

¶61

,a\\.L
"<

Yadma Sridhar Reddy, And 2 Others v. The State of Telangana, And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadma Sridhar Reddy, And 2 Others v. The State of Telangana, And Another

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

Ayyalapu Vijayendar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Thadkamalla Saroja and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Thadkamalla Harshavardhan Vs The State of Telangana and another

Gulam Khaja Moinuddin and another Vs The State Telangana and another

Smt. Petluru Vasundara Devi and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Vajinepalli Radha Krishna and Another Vs Vasa Diya and Another