Allowed

Nikhl Anukonda , Anumukonda Venkata Nikhil v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jan 2023CRLP/10315/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against five accused in a case alleging rape and atrocities, noting that underlying matrimonial complaints were withdrawn and parties had compromised.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No. 211 of 2022 quashed; miscellaneous petitions pending if any to be closed.

Nikhl Anukonda , Anumukonda Venkata Nikhil Vs The… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10315 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nikhl Anukonda @ Anumukonda Venkata Nikhil, S/o Anumukonda Thirumala Prasad, Aged about 23 years, 0cc. Private Employee. -

¶9

Prasad Anukonda @ Anumukonda Thirumala Prasad, S/o A. Ramachandra - Rao, Age s0years, 0cc. Private Employee.

¶10

Shilpa Anukonda @ Anumukonda Shilpa, Wo Anumukonda Thirumala Prasad, Age 47 yea$, occ. Teacher.

¶11

Chikitha Anukonda @ Anumukonda Chandra Chekitha, , Dio Anumukonda Thrrumala Prasad, Age. 18 years occ. Student. Above all are R/o Flat No. B1-10'1, SreeHemadurga Towers, Miyapur, Hyderabad-500049.

¶12

Sai @ Thanneru Sai Kumar, S/o Gyaneshwara Rao, Age. 38 years, Occ. Physiotherapy Doctor, R/o EWS-996, 3rd Phase, Opp. Venkateswara Temple, KPHB colonv' Hvderabad

¶13

...pETrroNERS/AccusED No. 1 to 5

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., Afzalgunj P.S., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶16

Kavya Kunjan, D/o Hussain, Aged about22 years, occ. Student, R/o H.No.15-1685/1, Gattaiah Center, Khammam, Telangana.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO/COMPLAINANTS

¶18

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 against the Petitioners/ Accused in Crime No. 211 of 2022 on the file of P.S. Afzalgunj, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences u/s 294-8, 417, 42O,376, 506 rlw 34 lPC, Sec.3 (2)(v)(a) SC and ST (P.O.A. ) Act, Dt.1 8-05-2022.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶20

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 Dispense with the filing of the certified copies of FIR and Complaint of Crime No. 211 of 2O22 on the file of P.S. Afzalgunj, Hyderabad Dist. and^{to pass}

¶21

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of^{Grounds of Criminal Petition, theHigh Court maybe}

¶23

pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the Petitioners/Accused in Crime No. 211 of 2022 on the file of P.S. Afzalgunj, Hyderabad^District, registered for the offences u/s 294-8, 417, 420,376, 506 r/w 34 lPC,^Sec.3 (2)(vxa) SC and ST (P.O.A.)Act, Dt.18-05-2022.

¶24

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶25

The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O., Afzalgunj P.S., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶26

2 Kavya Kunjan, D/o Hussain, Aged about 22years,Occ. Student, R/o H.No.1516-85/1 , Gattaiah Center, Khammam, Telangana.

¶27

.RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶28

Nikhl Anukonda @ Anumukonda Venkata Nikhil, S/o Anumukonda Thirumala Prasad, Aged about 23 years, 0cc. Private Employee.

¶29

Prasad Anukonda @ Anumukonda Thirumala Prasad, S/o A. Ramachandra Rao, Age sOyears, 0cc. Private Employee.

¶30

Shilpa Anukonda @ Anumukonda Shilpa, W/o Anumukonda Thirumala Prasad, Age 47 years, 0cc. Teacher.

¶31

Chikitha Anukonda @ Anumukonda Chandra Chekitha, , D/o Anumukonda Thirumala Prasad, Age. 18 years Occ. Student. Above all are Rt/o Flat No. B1101, SreeHemadurga Towers, Ivliyapur, Hyderabad-500049.

¶32

Sai @ Thanneru Sai Kumar, , S/o Gyaneshwara Rao, Age. 38 years, Occ. Physiotherapy Doctor, R/o EWS-996, 3rd Phase, Opp. Venkateswara Temple. KPHB colonv' Hvderabad

¶33

...pETrroNERS/ACcusED

¶34

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 compound the proceedings in Crime No.21112O22 on the file of P S Afzalgunj, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences uls 294 B, 417,420,376,506 rlw 341 lPC, Sec.3 (Z) (V) (a) of SC &ST (POA) Act as^parties have compromised the matter and quash the same.

¶35

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2023

¶36

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.G praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased To permit the Respondent NO.2 to file compromise petition to withdraw the case vide Crime No.21112022 on the file of P S Afzalgunj ,Hyderabad District, registered for the offences uls 294 B, 417,420,376,50O ilw 341 lPC, Sec.3 (2) (V) (a) of SC &ST (POA) Act.

¶37

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M LAXMAN RAO, Advocate for the Petrtioners and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Srikanth Gunti, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶40

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O315 OF 2022

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.211 of 2022, on the file of P.S.Afzalgunj, Hyderabad District, registered for the offences under Sections 294-8, 417, 42O, 376, 506 r/w 34 IPC, Section 3 (2)(v)(a) SC & ST (POA) Act.

¶43

Heard both sides

¶44

The 2"d respondent filed a complaint stating that Accused No. I is software employee and they were in love with one another. Taking advaltage ofher love, Accused No.1 had sexual' intercourse with her after tying Mangalsutram. Since the 2nd respondent did not give consent for having physical relation, Accused No.l abused her in the name of caste and forcibly participated in the sexual intercourse against her will. The 2"d respondent was studying B.Tech final year at Vijayawada KL University, thereafter Accused No.1 and 2"d respondent . continued to have physical relation. Since Accused No. I stopped responding to her phone calls, the^{present complaint}

¶45

KS'j Crl.Petition No.10f15 of 2022

¶46

¶47

¶48

was filed. The defacto-complainant also filed proof of phone ' calls made

¶49

The learned counsel appearing for thc petitioner submits that in fact maintenance case and DVC were already filed by the 2"d respondent and since the issues have been settled out of Court, both the applications were withdrawn by the 2"a respondent, by fiiing a memo before the concerned Court.

¶50

'5. The 2"a respondent does not dispute that the said withdrawal of both the petitions under DVC and also under Sectionl25 Cr.P.C.

¶51

As seen from the allegations, the relation between the 2"a respondent and the 1"t petitioner was consensual and both being adults, they had physical relation over a period of time.

¶52

,^{Sincethe Accused No.l did not respond to her phonecalls, she} filed the present complaint against Accused No.I and all the family members.

¶53

7- There is absolutely no averment made against any of the family members as to how they were complicit in the relation between the 2"d respondent and Accused No. 1. Further, when

¶54

. t}re Z\d respondent does not have any grievance and is not

¶55

KS,J Crl.Petition No.10315 of 2022

¶56

¶57

inclined to^prosecute either Accused No.1 in the DVC^' proceedings or in the maintenance proceedings and they intend to lir.'e their lives separately.

¶58

On facts none of the allegations made by the 2nd respondent amounts to al offence of either rape or punishabie under section 376 of IPC. The 2"d respondent herself has mentioned in the complaint that after marriage (tying , Mangalsutram), they had physical intimacy and thereafter, while she was studying final year B.Tech, they had physical reiation.

¶59

9 . When the said reiation was consensual, the question of attracting an offence under Section 376 of IPC does not arise. Further, as seen from the averments in the complaint, there was no intention on the part of Accused No.l to cheat the 2"d respondent. Unless such intention was entertained by the persons from the inception to have physical intimary and not to marry her, only in such event an offence under Section 42O would be attracted. In the present case, over a period of time they had physical relation and ultimately^{when the l"t} petitioner did not respond, the complaint^{was filed- Finally '}

¶60

t a

¶61

K5,J Crl.Petition No.10315 of 2022

¶62

¶63

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the 2"a respondent would submit that all of them have buried their differences and do not intend to prosecute the present case. Since on facts there are no grounds to continue the investigation and further no useful purpose would be served when the parties have compromised, for which reasons, the FIR ' is quashed.

¶64

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶65

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

shall stand closed.

//TRUE^COPY//

'15"1'!ffiY'.=.tl!"Ht[ / v SECTION^OFFICER

¶70

To,

¶71

l.ThellAdditionalChiefMetropolitanMagistrateatHyderabad.

¶72

2.TheStationHouseofficer,AfzalgunjPoliceStation,Hyderabad.

¶73

3TwoCctothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtforthestateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶74

One^{CC to Sri' M LaxmanRao' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶75

One^{CC to Sri'SrikanthGunti' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶76

Two^{CD CoPiesCoPies} BJLB \ V VH

¶77

Two^{CD CoPiesCoPies}

HIGH COURT

KS, J

DATED:2Ol01l2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.10315 of 2022

¶83

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶84

1 -\e sTAr€,
oo 0I FtB ?[z] ()
{*
.naspATc

¶85

Nikhl Anukonda , Anumukonda Venkata Nikhil v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhl Anukonda , Anumukonda Venkata Nikhil 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

Tholem Sambaiah Vs the State of A.P. and 54 Others

Panjala Rajeshwari Vs The State of Telangana

Gunti Revathi Vs The State of Telangana and another

Smt.Akilesh Shalini Reddy Vs Sri.Reddyvari Raja Sekhar

Kummara Ravindra Kummar , Ravindra Kummara Vs The State of Telangana

K.Sharada Vs The State of Telangana