Allowed

Vanthadupula Shiva Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Nov 2023CRLP/10232/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition filed for quashing proceedings under IPC and Dowry Act, the High Court allowed the petition upon recording a compromise and verification of parties via the Legal Services Committee, quashing the First Information Report against the accused.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in CC No. 3014 of 2020 are quashed. Petitioners directed to deposit Rs. 10,000 with the Advocates' Association within ten days as court costs.

Vanthadupula Shiva Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10232 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1. Vanthadupula Shiva Kumar, S/o.Pochaiah, Aged 33 years, Occ. Phd Student Rt/o.H. No.8-5-514, Pochammawada, Kothirampur, Karimnagar Town and diskict. Presently residing at USA Represented by SPA Holder V.^Pochaiah, S/o.Yellaiah. (As per the Court Order dated 16.'10.2023 V. Pochaiah is the rep. by GPA for Petitioner Nos I & 7 vide l.A.No.l ol 2023 |

¶9

V. Pochaiah, S/o.Yellaiah, Aged 61 years, Occ. Private Employee, Rlo. H.No.8-5-514, Pochammawada, Kothirampur, Karimnagar Town and district.

¶10

V.Pushpa, W/o.Pochaiah, Aged 47 Years, Occ. housewife, R/o-H.No.1-56, Chinnalingapur, Thangenapally, Rajanna Siricilla District.

¶11

A.Raju, S/o. Late A.Ashaiah, Aged 61 years, Occ. Govt Employee,. R:io. H.No.34/A,/GF, Block-9, Sanjeevaiah Nagar, West Maredpally, Secunderabad.

¶12

V.Shashi Kumar, S/o. Ramchandram, Aged 27 years, Occ. Private Employee, Rl/o.H.No-8-5-496/A, Pochammawada, Kothirampur, Karimnagar Town and District-

¶13

V.Ramchandram, S/o. Late Yellaiah, Aged 50^years, Occ. municipal^Worker, R/o. H. No.8-5-496/A, Pochammawada, Kothirampur, Karimnagar Town and District.

¶14

Shyaga Narsaiah, S/o.Rama Chandram, Aged 42^years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. H. No. 1-88/1 , Chinnalingapur, Thangallapalle Mandal, Rajanna Sirisilla Presently residing at lD 27214, TRAGS Engineering WLl-, Al^Manara Building. Mezzanine Floor, B Ring Road, P.Box No. 470, Doha Qatar. Represented by SPA Holder V. Pochaiah, S/o.Yellaiah,

¶15

...PETlfl ONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶16

AND

¶17

1 . The State of Telangana, Through Public^Prosecutor of High Court, Hyderabad.

¶18

Talapaka Mounika, D/o.Talapaka Ramulu, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. Flat No.202, Block-A, Greenhills, Megacity Apartments, Gangaram, Chandanagar Presently residing at Unit 6, Howard Street,^Boxhill, VIC 3128, Australia Represented by SPA Holder Talapaka Ramulu,

¶19

S/o lMallaiah. (As per Court Ordr dated 16.10.2023, vide l.A.No.3 of 2023 in CR|.P. No.1o232l2oz3 or zozeiaripira Ramutu t'o rep. ;; GC Hot;;;.

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal-peiition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in cc No. 3014 of 2o2o on the fire of x Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally.

¶22

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2023

¶23

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar'petition,the High court may be pleas-ed to Permit the petitioner record the iompromise and quashlhe proceedings in cc No. 3014 of 2020 on the fire of the x Additional Metroporitan Magistrate;t Kukatpally and be pleased to pass

¶24

l.A. NO: sOF 2O23

¶25

Between:

¶26

Talapaka Mounika, D/o.Talapaka Ramulu, Aged about 29 years, Occ. private FI!]gry"_,,Yo^Ftat^{No.2O2,lltock-A, Creeirtritr!,tvt"ga"ity npa'rtmerits, Cln;";;;;} unanoanagar^presenfly residing at Unit 6, Howarii streei. Boxnill. v1c"3128 Austrarra Represented by SpA Holder Talapaka Ramulu, S/o.T.Mallaiah.

¶27

...Petitioner/Defacto Complainant.

¶28

AND

¶29

1 Vanthadupula Shiva Kumar, S/o.pochaiah, Aged 33 years, Occ. phd Student Rl/o.H No.8-5-5'14,^{pochammawada,} Kothir;mpur, kirimnagar town anodistrict. Presentty residing at USA RbpresenteO'Oy SeA HotdEr V. p;haAh, S/o.Yellaiah.

¶30

2 Y, .iqghq"I,,^{S/o.Yettaiah,Aged 61 years,} Occ.^private Employee, Rlo.H No.8-5-514, Pochammawida, Kottiiramiur, kirimnagar Town and district.

¶31

J yl!_.!p,_1-ry/9. Pochaiah, Aged_47^yeali, Occ. housewife, R/o. H.No. 1 -56, unrnnarrngapur, I hangenapally, Rajanna Siricilla District.

¶32

A.Raju, S/o. Late A.Ashaiah, Aged 61 years, Occ Govt Employee,. R/o.H. No.34lA/cF, Block-9, Sanjeevaiah Nagar, West Maredpally, Secunderabad.

¶33

5 V.Shashi Kumar, S/o. Ramchandram. Aqed 27 vears Occ. Private Employee, R/o H. No 8-5-496/4,^{pochammawada, -Kotnirainpui,} Karimnagar Town and

¶34

District.

¶35

6 V.Ramchandram, S/o. Late yellaiah. Aqed 50 vears Occ. municipal Worker, RJo- H. No. 8-5-496/4, Pochammawada,^{-Kothirainpui,'} Karimnagar Town and

¶36

District

¶37

7 Shyaga Narsaiah, S/o.Rama Chandram, Aged 42 years, Occ.^private lmqlgye_e,^{R/oH.No.1 €8/1, Chinnatinqapur,Thangallapalte Mandal, Rajanna} Sirisilla Presently residrng at lD 2t214: f nnOS en-gineering WLL, At Minara Building. Mezzanine Floor, B Rinq Road,^p. Boi No. 470, Doha eatar. Represented by SPA Hoiier V. Pochaiah, S/o.yellaiah, ... RespondenuPetitioners/Al to A7.

¶38

8 The State of Telangana, Through public prosecutor of High Court, Hyderabad.

¶39

...RespondenURespondent.

¶40

Petition under Section 320 (2) of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition,the High Court may be pleased record the compromise and quash the proceedings in CC No. 3014 of 2020 on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally.

¶41

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Krishna sumanth, Advocate for the Petitioners and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri M.Hema Chandra, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶42

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER CRIMTNAL PETITION No.1O232 OF 2o23 ALONG WITH I.A. Nos.4 AND 5 OF 2023

¶44

COMMON ORDER:

¶45

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3O14 of 2O2O on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, against the petitioners/Al to A7. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 4gg-A, 42O, 4lT arrd 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act.

¶46

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

¶47

During the pendency of the present Crimina_l petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.2/defacto complainant filed I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2023 to permit to compound the offences and to compromise the case.

¶48

Vide order dated 16.1O.2O23, this Court, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2, directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee,

¶49

¶50

Hyderabad, for their identification ald also directed the Secretary to submit a report by 06.11.2023. In compliance with the said order, the Secretar5r has submitted his report, on 2g.10.2023.

¶51

In the report of the Secretaqr, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, it is stated that in obedience of the orders of this Court, the petitioner No.2 who is SpA holder of petitioner Nos.l and 7, Petitioner Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and the SpA holder of respondent No.2 have appeared along with their counsel a,d on examination and verification of their particulars from their Aadhar Cards, they were tallied. Thus the identification of both the parties has been established.

¶52

Thb parties herein have filed a joint memo of compromise stating that at the intervention of the eiders, they have settled the disputes between them amicably and 2.d respondent has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Al to A,7 herein in the above Case. The said joint memo of compromise and the report of the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, are placed on record.

¶53

7 . In view the said report of the Secretary, Telalgana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, and also in view of the compromise entered between the petitioners/A 1 to A7 and.

¶54

¶55

respondent No.2, I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2023 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.3O14 of 2O2O on the file of the X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, are hereby quashed against the petitioners/Al to A7. Petitioners/Al to A7 undertake to pay an amount of Rs. 10,O00/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates' Association, Hyderabad, within a period of ten days from today, and file proof of the same into the Registry.

¶56

As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any,

¶57

sha-ll stand closed.

¶58

I SdlMohd Ismail ASSISTANT \FGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// v', SECTIOI{OFFICER

¶59

To,

¶60

The X Additional Metropolitan^{tt/lagistrate at Kukatpally.}

¶61

The Station^{HouseOfficer, ChandanagarPolice Station,CyberabadDistr|ct.}

¶62

One CC to Sri.^{N Krishna Sumanth,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶63

4- One CC to Sri M.Hema^{Chandra,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶64

Two CD Copies.

¶65

Jgk

¶66

As per Hon'ble Court direction^{Cost Rs.1O,00O/-( RupeesTen Thousand Only)} paid to Telangana High Gourt Advocates^{Association,Hyderabad vide USR No.} 11462112023 JateO. zi.l f^{.zO23 and herewithenclosing Joint Memocopies)} .V

HIGH COURT

KSJ

OATED:161111223

ORDER

CRLP.No.10232 of 2023

¶72

lrere q A
o
stt Ns
:)ou tt +
i oEsFr{

¶73

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE

¶74

.<br>e)
a,

Vanthadupula Shiva Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanthadupula Shiva Kumar 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

Pasuladi Naveen Vs The State of Telangana

Perala Hari Hara Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Jangam Chandra Mohan Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Keerthi Naresh Vs State of Telangana

Buddaram Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Muddunuri Sheshanna @ Sheshaiah @ Peddodu @ Bhaskar Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana