Allowed

Bathina Mohan Sandeep v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Jan 2023CRLP/11632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on Sections 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Telangana High Court allowed the matter upon confirmation of a compromise between the parties after a Legal Services Committee report verified their identities.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 92512/2022 are hereby quashed. Petitioners must pay Rs. 10,000 to the Director, Sajna Welfare, Hyderabad, within one week.

Bathina Mohan Sandeep Vs The State of Telangana — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 11632 0F 2022

¶7

ALONG WITH l.A. NOs. 1 AND 2 ot 2022

¶8

CRIMINAL PETIT ION NO : 11632 0F 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

B^athha Mohan Sandeep, S/o. late Veera Venkata Kutumba Rao, Aged. 31 years, Occ. Bank Employee, Residents of H.No.3-2_255, plot No.7Z, SBH Colony, L.B. t tagar, HyOeiaUdO.

¶11

2 Smt Bathina Ramadevt, W/o late B.V.V. Kutumba Rao, Aged.51 years, Occ. pvt..Emptoyee, Both Residents of H.No.3-2_2SS, ptot N6.72, SaU C6tony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos. 1 & 2

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep by the public prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the state of Telangana.

¶15

Smt. Logisetti Lakshmi Krishna Maha Swetha, Wo. B. Mohan Sandeep, Aged 30 y_ears, Occ Pvt. Emptoyge, R/o. Flat No.14, ptot No.409 anO +fb,'Sai'---

¶16

I e1a.l owers, KHPB Colony, 6th phase, Kukatpally, Medchal- Malkajgiri

¶17

District.

¶18

...Ist RESPoNDENT/STATE

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.g2Sl2O22 on tne fite oi Honorable Vlll ADDTTTONAL JUNTOR CtVtL JUDGE-CUM_ XXXil ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGTSTRATE AT KUKATPALLY, CYBERABAD against the petitioners / Accused NOs. 1 and 2.

¶20

l.A. NO:1 OF 20,.2

¶21

Between:

¶22

Smt. Logis_etti -akshmi Krishnaj/aha Swetha, Wo. B. Mohar Sardeep, Aged. 30 years, Occ Pvt. Employee, R/o. Flat No.14, plot f.fo.+OS :rO Af O, Sai T"eij Towers, KHPE Cotony,'6rti phase, Kukarpiity,^'Mel;hrl_ M; ri rigi;i DiJtilt. ","

¶23

. . , PETITIONER/OEFT CTO COMPLAINANT

¶24

AND

¶25

r f.Tetangana, Rep by the public prosecutor t- iEr Cou( of

¶26

t lh9 -S_t^ate Juotcature rt Hyderabad For the state ofTelangana

¶27

1't RESPoNDENT/STATE

¶28

Bathina M< han Sand, years, occ B",k E;";:3,y"2: J:::.H,?i,"rn:,: r: lr; 5"ft ;}?it# Cotony, L.E . Nagar, Hideiabad.

¶29

Bathina lvlchan Sandeep, S/o. late Veera Venkata Kulunrba Rao. Aoed 31 years, occ Bank Employee, Residents ot u.ruo.b-z-z:s,-F.i [b.iZ, sa'H Cotony, L.B Nagar, Hfdeiabad.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.,t & 2

¶31

Petition un,ler section 320(6) of crr.p.c praying that n the circumstances stated in the Menrorandum of Grounds of Criminai p6tifion, tl.e High C;;;i;;; bg p.l!g:^"9 to pen nit the petitioner to compromise in C .C. Nc.925 12.6ZZ on te fiL Of HONORABLE YIII ADDITIONAL JUNiOR CIVIL JUDGE (]JM XXXII ADDL. METROPOLTTAN MAGTSTRATE AT KUKATPALLy, CVaeAaano againsiG; petitioners /accus,:d nos.1 and 2 for the offence u/sec.4gS(Al IpC Rlw. "Sec.g anO 4 DP Act

¶32

l.A. NO: 2 OF 202:'.

¶33

Between:

¶34

Smt. Logis^etti Llkshmi Krishnalvlaha Swetha, Wo. B. Mohar SanrJeep, Aged 30 years, Occ.^)vr. Employee, RJo. Ftat ruo.il, pioi f.to.i6g,,n,: +rO, Sii i.eia Towers, KHpB )otony,'6*i ph;se, Ku[;i;;irv,'lrrrdi"nJ_-il""r,,rtsiii DiJtilt.^","

¶35

,, PETITIONERYDEFA(^-rI] c cMPLAINANT

¶36

AND

¶37

The State of Telangana, Rep by the public prosecutor Hirrr Court of JUotcature a Hyderabad For the state of Telangana

¶38

...1"t RESPONDENT/STATE

¶39

Bathina Mohan Sandeep, S/o. late Veera Venkata Kutumba Rao, Aged. 31 years, Occ: Bank Employee, Residents of H.No-3-2-255, Plot No.72, SBH Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶40

Bathina Mohan Sandeep, S/o. late Veera Venkata Kutumba Rao, Aged. 31 years, Occ. Bank Employee, Residents of H.No.3-2-255, Plot No.72, SBH Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶41

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2

¶42

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 Record the compromise to^quash the^proceedings against the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 herein in C.C.^No.92512O22 on the file of HONORABLE VIII ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM. XXXII ADDL. IMETROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT KUKATPALLY, CYBERABAD, in view of the compromise entered between the petitioner/defacto complainant and Respondent No.1 and 2 /accused No.'1 and 2.

¶43

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. SATISH CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri V. YADU KRISHANA SAINATH, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

¶46

¶47

THE HOITOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURE]\DER

¶48

cEI!@\2e}it_ alQlo@oF292'.2

¶49

COMMON ORDE 1:

¶50

This Crimir Lal Petition is filed under Scctior l9ll Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.92!t ol 2() ),2 on the file of the VIII Addir ional Junior Civil Judge-curn-XXXII r\dditional Metropolitan MaE istrate at Kukatpally, Cyberalract. "Lre p,etitioners herein are zrccus ed Nos. 1 & 2 in the said case. Thi: oflences alleged against tl e petitioners herein are under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal codt and Secrion 3 & 4 of the Dou ry Prohib:tion Act.

¶51

Heard learred t:ounscl appearing on both sidl; and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused t tt_, record.

¶52

During the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have < ompromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.2Tdefacto complainant filed I.A.Nos. 1^{,a^nd} 2of 2022 to permit to compound the offences and to compromise ttre case.

¶53

4 . Vide order tlated 26.12.2022. this Court, after recc,rding the submissions mac e by the learned counsel lor the^{'l:etitioners} as well as responder rt No.2, directed the parties t() apFoar trefore the Secretary, Telan lana High 'Coutrt Legal Services Committee,

¶54

¶55

.,)

¶56

Hyderabad' for their identification and also directed the Secretary to submit a report by o5.oi.2023. In compliance with the said order, the secretary has submitted his report, on 30. r2.2o22.

¶57

In the report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court LegaJ Services Committee, Hyderabad, it is stated that in obedience of the orders dated 26. 12.2022, the petitioners/Al & A2 and,the 2.a respondent have appeared before him along with their counsel and on examination and verification of their particulars from their Aadhar Cards, they were tallied Thus the identification of both the parties has been established.

¶58

The parties herein have filed a joint memo of compromise stating that at the intervention of the elders, .they^{have settled the} disputes between them amicably and 2.d respondent has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in the above Case. The said joint memo of compromise and the report of the Secretary are placed on record.

¶59

In view the said report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, and also in view of the compromise entered between the petitioners artd respondent No.2, I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2o2%are allowed. Consequently, the

(

/ ,t/ t/

Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in^().C.No.925 of 2022 on the file of the VIII Additional Junior Cir':l Judge-cum XXXII Addition al Metropolitan Magistratr. i, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, a-re I rereby quashed against the petitio^-tr:.rs//Al & A2. Petitioners/A1 & A2 undertake to pay an amount :l'Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Th lusand Only) to the Director, Sajnik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savirgs A/c.No.52 188926279, Srate llank of India, within a period ol one week from today, and lile prr,rrl of the same into the Regrstry.

¶64

As a sequt l, the miscellaneous Petitiorrs, p,:r:ding if any, shall stand cLoser [.

¶65

Sd/. M. MANJULA tI: PU']Y REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

r:jECTION OFFICER

The Vlll ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- XXXil ADDL. METROPC LITAN MAGISTRATE AT KUKATPALLY, CYBERABAD,

¶71

The Statior r House Officer, KPHB police station, Cyberabad.

¶72

Two CCs t: the Public Prosecutor, High Court for th( State of Telangana, at Hyderab ad (OUT).

¶73

One CC to SRl. K SATISH CHAKRAVARTHY Advocat€ IOPLIC]

¶74

One CC to Sri V. YADU KRISHANA SAINATH, Ad rocater [OPUC]

¶75

Two CD Cc pies

¶76

¶77

-+y--

¶78

NOTE: Amount pa d by rhe Petirioner Rs. 10.000/- to the Sa rik Weltar.e, Hyderabad, UPI Ref. No. 3021268 01396 on date 23-01-2023.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110112)23

ORDER

CRLP.No.11632 of 2022

¶83

..<a
i. -it' : s-tA7I'
q ';'
oo $ 6 rtB 2tzl
4
/
\r

¶84

ALLOWING TI{E CRIMINAL PETITION AND I.A'S I AN D : C)1: :]022

¶85

0
\ E
w
(.

Bathina Mohan Sandeep v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathina Mohan Sandeep 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

Smt Bandla Anantha Lakshmi Vs The Public Prosecutor

Shwasa Constructions Vs State of Telangana

Yerramsetti Latha , Lavanya Vs The State of Telangana

Singham Kondal and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Saud Ul Haq Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Idrees Khan , Idris Khan , Muhad Vs The State of Telangana