Allowed

DumpalaGuruva Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jun 2023CRLP/3932/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Petition and other InterApplications filed by the accused. Based on a recordable compromise entered before the Legal Services Committee, the proceedings in C.C. No. 332 of 2020 regarding dowry and related allegations were quashed, subject to the payment of a fine by the counsel.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No. 332 of 2020 quashed. Fine of Rs. 5,000/- directed to be paid by the counsel for the petitioners to Sainik Welfare and High Court Advocate Association.

DumpalaGuruva Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s4 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUS-TICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

!.A.NOS. 2 AND 3 0F 2023

¶7

IN/AND

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3932 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

DumpalaGuruva Reddy, S/o Bhupathi Reddy, Age 40 years, Occ- Software Engineer, Rlio. H. No- 1-3-36/1 , Parupally Village, Siddepet District.

¶11

Dumpala Bhupathi Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Age 82 years, Occ- labour, Rl/o. H. No-^{'l-3-36/1,.Parupally} Village, Siddepet District.

¶12

DumpalaBharathi, Wo. Guruva Reddy, Age 56 years, Occ- Labour, R/o. H. No- 1-3-36/1 , Parupally Village, Siddepet District.

¶13

DumpalaMahender, S/o Bhupathi Reddy, Age 41 years, Occ- Software Engineer, R/o. H. No 1-3-3611 , Parupally Village, Siddepet District.

¶14

Smt. KalluriShravani, Wo Eswara Chary, Age 44 yeas, Occ- House Wife, Rl/o. H. No- 1-3-36/1 , Parupally Village, Siddepet District

¶15

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos. 1 to 5

¶16

AND

¶17

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

¶18

Smt.KalluriNavyaSree, Wio Gurava Reddy, aged about 20 years, Occstudent, F/o. 99/A, Sai Srinivasa Nagar, Dhammaiguda, Keesara, MedchalMalkajgiri District

¶19

...RESPONDENT/DE.FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶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 quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No.'l to 5 in C.C. 332 of 2O2O on file of the Xxlll Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

¶21

crt-,/

¶22

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 5 in c.c. No. c.c. 332 of 2o2o on file of the XXI I I Metropolitan [r1agistrate, at Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

¶24

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023

¶25

Between:

¶26

Smt KalluriNav_y-alre-e, W/o. Gurava Reddy, aged abo.ut 20 years, Occ_ student, R/o. 99/A, Sai Srinivasa Nagar, Dhammaiguda, Keesara, ff46Ocf,at Malkajgiri District

¶27

...PETITIONER/R2

¶28

AND

¶29

'1 . DumpalaGrruva Reddy, S/o Bhupathi Reddy, Age 40 years, Occ- Software Engrneer, I-vo. H. No- 1-3-36/'l , parupally Village, Siddepet District.

¶30

Dumpala -Bhupathi Reddy, S_/o. Raji Reddy, Age 82 years, Occ_ labour, R:/o. H. No- 1-3-36/1 ,^{parupailyViilage,} SiddepeiDiitrict.

¶31

DumpalaBharathi, W/o. Guruva Reddy, Age 56 -years, Occ- Labour, R/o. H. No- 1-3-36/1 , Parupally Viflage, Siddefet District.

¶32

DumpalaMahender, S/o Bhupathi nbOOy, Rge 41 years, Occ_ Software Engineer, Rt/o. H. No l-3-36/1 ,^{parupallyViilag;,} SiOOe[etOi'strrct.^---"--

¶33

S lft .^{KalluriShravani, W/oEswara Chary, Age 44 yearc,} Occ_ House Wife, R/o. H. No- 1-3-36/1 ,^parupaily Viflage, Sidde6et District

¶34

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS

¶35

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court for the State ot Telangana, Hyderabad

¶36

,..RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶37

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 to compound the offences u/s 4gB-A of Indian Penal code, Section 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and Section 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act

¶38

)

¶39

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2023

¶40

Petition under Section 32O^{(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 to record the compromise^{between the petitioners andthe} respondent No.2 in C.C. 332 of 2020^{on file of the XXlll Metropolitan Magistrate,} at Medchal, Medchal-tVlalkajgiri District

¶41

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the arguments of Sri HABEEB} ABUBAKAR ALHAMED, Advocate^{for the Petitioners in Criminal Petition,l.A.No.} 1 ot 2023 and for respondents in^{l.A.No. 2 and 3 of 2023'Sri S. GANESH'} Assistant Public Prosecutor on^behalf of^{the RespondentNo. 1 in Criminal} Petition, l.A.No. 1 of 2023 and Respondent^{No. 6 in l.A.No.2 and 3 of 2023,Sri} SHAIK SHAREEF, Advocate for the^{RespondentNo.2 in CriminalPetition,} l.A.No. 1 oI 2023 and Petitioner^{in l.A.No.2and3of 2023}

¶42

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶43

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶44

I.A.NOS.2 AND 3 0F 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3932 0F 2023

¶45

COMMON ORDER:

¶46

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 that during the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.2 filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 to permit them to compound the offences and to compromise the case.

¶47

\ridc order datccl^,)O.O4.2023, this Court, directed the parties to appear belbrc the Sccn_.tary, Telangana High Court Legal Services commirtee, Iiyderabad, arong with their respective counsel for their identilication :rnd lbr recording the compromise entered betrveen them

¶48

I I

¶49

Basing on thc said direction, the Secreta ry, Legal Services Committee has idcntiliecl the parties and recorded the compromise. The joir-rt memo of compromise and the report of the Secretan. are placed on record

¶50

4 In vier,r, of the above, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 are allowed Consequently, the Crimirral pe tition is allowed and the proceedings ln C.C No.332 of 2O2O

¶51

pcn d inq on the file of learned XXIII Metropolilan Magistrate ar Medchal, Medchal_Malkajgiri District.

¶52

¶53

¶54

against the petitioners-Accused Nos.1 to 5 are hereby quashed subject to petitioner's paying an amount of Rs.5,000/ -(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to The Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad^(Savings A/c.No.S2 188926279, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch (2OO7O, IFSC Code :SBINOO2007O, MICR No.500OOa057) and Rs.5,O00/ -(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the 'Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad', within a period of two weeks from today, and file proof of the same into the Registry.

¶55

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

¶56

stand closed.

¶57

To,

¶58

Sd/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANLREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ':b

¶59

The )(Xlll Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal

¶60

The Station House Officer, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate

¶61

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

¶62

One CC to SRl. HABEEB ABUBAKAR ALHAMED, Advocate IOPUCI

¶63

One CC to SRl. SHAIK S. GANESH, SHAREEF, Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

Two CD Copies

¶65

¶66

(Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise)

¶67

NOTE: Amount paid by SRI HABEEB ABUBAKAR ALHAMED, Counsel for the Petitioner towards imposed by Cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) directed by the Hon'ble Court, dated 12.06.2023. to the Telangana High Court Advocate's Association, Hyderabad vide Receipt No. 72195 and Rs, 5,0001 (rupees Five Thousand only) to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad and filed lMemo of Proof of Compliance USR.No.70320 of 2023 daled:28.O7.2023.

HIGH COURT

GAC, J

DATED: 1210612023

ORDER I.A.NOS. 2 AND 3 0F 2023 IN CRLP.No.3932 of 2023

¶72

J*
22 stP tu3
'.1t
,..) t ./'
''--l l ""'.''Ju''"' /'/

¶73

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL

¶74

PETITION

¶75

{

¶76

::. E -I.5,i ;. I,t rli

¶77

¶78

Memorandum.o[prim]nal !e (Under S

¶79

IN THE HIGH COdiRT
AT
i
CRL.P.NO ;if,
IT
,}tr .I
.,|:
.i
Between: &'. J. .:}
ti
I t .:
i:'
1. Dumpala Guruva Reddy, S/o Bhupathi
s
Age 40 years, Occ: Software Engineer, I (i
R/o. H. No# 1-3-3611, ParupallY .:
2. Dumpala Bhupathi Reddy S/o
Age 82 years, Occ: iabour,
] t
tt
.)
r
--i-v
5-
R/o H No# I J J 6 Pa I
Yt. t:ti &
) i .I,,
5. Smt. Kallun Shravani, Wo Eswara C * q
Age 44 years, Occ: House W t;
R/o. H. No# 1-3-3611, ParupallYVi age, S
i
..,P-eti .!':'
And
1. The State ofTelangana, ,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor;
High Court for the state of Telangana
(
2. Smt. Kalluri Navya Sree.Wo, Gurava
aged about 20 years, Occ: student, d.'
PJo.99/A, Sai Srini vasa Nagar, r1 E, ir
Dhammaiguda, Keesara, Medchal;Mal
t:'
il& :il:ii
'.: !
i'' lr:
l ui ):.
,11'
,:
a,
1 .:.. ,it l ,.i; :ia
: ,t ,.! t
{

¶80

i11

¶81

.I,, q

¶82

i,I :.$ '.x ,fl ,:1 ,i ,4 r...i t: I l.t

¶83

¶84

',4

¶85

'- lI t
,:'
i, .i
iz
:- ':;: f $
( JoINT MEMo
::'.Ir d that the pet tioner and the re spondent N o 2
Ive d ssue and entered nto an amrcab e settlement
:f; of eIderS and we 1 wi Sh rS of both of u S and to
eit
r& ? e compromISe petition Is a.l so fi ed
1' l; Hence int Memo
a
Y
tI
Comp a_tnant P t tione4-r ACcused No 1
-- 1,
,
Pet tioner A Ccu sed No 2
itt;
.t
,t': o 6
1-:.
..Y.
Petitionef ACcused No 3
1. t
I
Ia
? i: Petition r Accused No 4
ri,
i .rt- t,
i J a
I), Y-?/
i$i. ^it d .};ilt Petitioner ACCu Sed No 5
fii
p,
1.",,
oun f6r R2 I
IiIrilri. _t. Ui .l Coun S Pe ti oner Re SPondent
.sI
lf,
t4[ tl
r;: 'i: .,
t
{t,'t:t. i
ii
T
l(
i
t*iti 1i
:r:!Jll,i(i :-11,:

¶86

.1 q\ F.

¶87

DumpalaGuruva Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

DumpalaGuruva Reddy 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

Sri NimmagaddaDarahasaLahari Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.M.Radha Rani and Another Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Gaddam Ashok Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Kalumula Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

Nitturi Rajalingu Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mr.Madhusudhan Gochhikar Vs The State of Telangana