Allowed

K. Gopala Krishnan v. The State of Telangana And Another

Telangana HC6 Jun 2023CRLP/401/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed interim applications to record a compromise. The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 420 IPC and 66D IT Act subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 to the Director Social Welfare Hyderabad.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in F.I.R No.562 of 2021 were quashed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 to the Director, Social Welfare, Hyderabad, within four weeks.

K. Gopala Krishnan Vs The State of Telangana And Another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

THIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO TI.IOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

I.A.NOS:2 AND 3 OF 2023 IN/AND

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 401 OF 2023

¶7

BetYveen:

¶8

K. Gopala Krishnan, S/o Kannan, Aged about 31 years, occupation. business, R/o No.1/1 , Ponnappa Lane, Triplicane, Chennai, Tamilnadu state- 600005. Saroornagar, Hyderabad- 500035

¶9

...PETtTTONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

The. State of Telangarta NrA#€*heL The State of Telangana Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad Through Station House Officer, Police station- Cyber Crime Rangareddy district

¶12

Chilukuri Vasavi, w/o Chilukuri Veeraiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ. business, Rl/o Plot No. 182, Vasavi Enclave, Pragathi Nagar, Hyderabad500090

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

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 all further proceedings against ih" P"tition", in connection with Crime in F.l.R No.562 of 2021 , dated 301121202'1 on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Rangareddy district, and^pass

¶15

.4. N :2OF 2O23

¶16

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 permit the petitioner i Respondent No.2 in Cdp No. 40112023 compound the offences with the respondent No.1 and^quash the FIRⁱⁿ Cr.No.562l2o21 , dated 3o-12-2021on the file of P.S. Cyber Crime, Cyberabad,

¶17

registered for the offences punishable Under Section 420 of lndian Penal Code & 66D of lnformation Technology Act, in the interest of^justice

¶18

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶19

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 stay all further proceedings against the Petitioner in,:onnection with Crime in F.l.R No.562 of 2021 , daled 3O11212021 on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Rangareddy district, during pending drsposal of^present quash petition and pass

¶20

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2023

¶21

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 Crlp No. 40112023 record the compromise between the petitioner and Defacto complainant/respondent No.2 in FIR in Cr.No.56212021 , dated 30-1 2- 2021on the file of P.S- Cyber Crime, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable Under Section 420 of lndian Penal Code & 66D of lnformation Tr-'chnology Act, and quash the proceedings and to pass

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the lVlt:morandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of {}ri N. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and of Sri Yajur Putta, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

t I

¶25

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶26

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2O23

¶27

IN/AND CRTMINAL PETITION CASE No.4Ol of 2023

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

B.t order dated 25.04.2023, the matter was referred to High Court Legal Services Committee for identifying the parties and for recording the compromise entered betr,r,een them.

¶30

Basing on the said direcLions, the Secretary, Legal Services Committee has ider;tified both the parties and recorded the compromise anrl to that effect filed report dated 27.O4.2O23. Memorandum of compromise was also taken on record.

¶31

In view of the above, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allor.r,ed and the proceedings in Crime t,lo. 562 ol 2027 on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Ranga Reddy District against thc petitioner for the offences punishable under section 42O of Indian Penal Code and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act ar-e quashed subject to payment of an amount of Rs. 10,0OO/- (Rupecs Tcn Thousand) in favour of Director, SainiI< Welfare, Flyderabad, (Savings Alc

¶32

No.52 188926279, Stztte Bar-rk of India, Shantinagar Brancl.r & 2OO7O,IFSC Code; SBIN0020070, MICR No.5O0004O57) within four u,eeks from today, and lile proof ol the same into the Rcgisrry.

¶33

Pending miscellaneous applications, if an{, shall

¶34

stard closed

¶35

Sd/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( .lD

//TRUE COPY//

SECI]ON OFFICER

To,

The X Addl. Mekopolitan M-agistrate, Kukatpaly at Miyapur

¶40

The Station House Officer, CyberCrime (CiBi 'p;ti"" Station, C;yberabad 3. One CC to Sri N. Rarnesh Kumar, Advocat"lOpUCt 4. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court foitne Siate of Telangana (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies

¶41

¶42

(cost Memo fired on bchalfofthe petitioner Rs. r0,000r (ten thousand rupees onry) vide USR No.58055/2023 herervith encloscd)

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610612023

ORDER

I.A.NOS:2 AND^{3 OF 2023} IN/AND

¶47

( sTAT C oA )
*,
q
I}B SEP MI (t
o() 4
+
,
' . !r,'\ I PIs r'' r'-'rr-
-_, i:

¶48

CRLP.No.4O1^{of 2023}

¶49

Disposing of^{the Criminal Petition} in terms of comPromise

¶50

q19

K. Gopala Krishnan v. The State of Telangana And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Gopala Krishnan 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

M/s. Advik Laboratories Limited, Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Aleem Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mohd Hafeez and 3 Ors. Vs Mohad Yousff

Joga Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

T.Hari Prasad Rao and Anr. Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Bommakanti Yadagiri, Vs The State of Telangana