Allowed

Smt a Rama Bharathi v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jun 2023CRLP/4075/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition and I.A.s based on a recorded compromise between the petitioners and the legal heir of the deceased respondent. The court quashed the criminal complaint subject to the payment of specific compensation amounts.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.294 of 2006 are quashed subject to the petitioner paying Rs. 5,000 to the Director, Service Welfare, Hyderabad and Rs. 5,000 to the Telangana High Court Advocates Assoc

Smt a Rama Bharathi Vs State of Telangana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t32541

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G, ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023

¶7

IN/AND

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION No: 4075 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt A Rama Bharathi, Wo A. Vasudeva Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ Housewife. R/o.Flat No.201, Francis Apartments, West Marredpally, Secunderabad

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶14

Late Dr.Doodala Bharathi, Wo.late D.Rama Rao (died)

¶15

2nd Respondent expired on 22.07.2022 Hence 3rd Respondent is

¶16

representing the 2nd Respondent. ...Proforma Respondent

¶17

Smt. K. Yashodhara, Wo. K. Murali Krishna, Aged 57 years, occ. Housewife R/o. C-104, Wellkin Park Apartments, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 0'16

¶18

...L.R. Of thE 2"d RESPONDENT

¶19

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 between the petitioners and the 3rd Respondent in the light of the MOU dated 14.04.2023 and^quash the CC No.294l2006 on the file of the Hon'ble V Add. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Juvenile Court), Nampally, Hyderabad, as against the Petitioners herein.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition und,: r Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated rn the [/enro andum of Grounds of criminal p€,tition, the lligh court may be pleased to stay i ll proceedings including appearance of th,: pr:titioner in C.C. No.294 of 2016 cr :he file of the Hon'ble v Additiona rlhi,:f Ir.4etropolitan Magistrate (Ju,/eni (: Court), Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶22

l.A. NO: 2 of 2023

¶23

Petition uncier section 320(6) of cr.p.c prayrng that in rhe circumstances stated in the fulenror :r dLrm of Grounds of criminal petitior,^.e I-ligh court may be pleased to perrni the Petitioners herein to compound the c ferces arising out of C.C.No.294 of ll ,06 on the file of the Hon'ble V Aclcll 1)hir:f Metropolitan Magistrate (Julenrler rl()urt). Nampally, Hyderabad Telangane.

¶24

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2023

¶25

Petition under section 320(2) of cr.p.c praying that in rhe circumstances stated in the l/emor rnJum of Grounds of criminal pelition th: High court may be pleased to re:. d the compromise between the petitiot-ers and the 3rd respondent rn tte lr(l tt of the MOU dated 14-04-2023:rnd qt ar;h the CC.No.294 of 2006 on the^rile of the Hon ble V Addl. chief Metropc,litan l,,4,,rgistrate (Juvenile Court), Nampally, iiv lerabad

¶26

This Petrtrorr ::>rring on for hearing, upon perul;ing; flte Mt:morandum of Grounds of Crimin; Petition and upon hearing the ar( urner)ts of Sri K. PRASHANT. Arjvocri e for the petitioner and the sri S (il,NESH, Assistant Public Prosec:tcr or berhalf of the Respondent No..1 and of SR K. CHAITANYA, Advocate for the, Resl ro rdent No.3.

¶27

The Court made the l:ltowing: COMMON ORDER

¶28

I \

¶29

¶30

HON'BLE SMT. .IUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶31

I.A.NOS.2 AND 3 0F 2023 IN AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.4O75 OF 2023

¶32

COMMON ORDER:

¶33

ln the present case, the respondent No.2/de-facto complainant is no more. Therefore, legal heir of respondent No.2 i.e., respondent No.3 has come on record. Basing on the will executed by the respondent No.2l de-facto complainant, petitioner and respondent No.3 have entered into compromise.

¶34

On 24.04.2023, it was submitted by learned counsel for the j petitioner as well as respondent No.3 that during the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.3 filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2C23 to permit them to compound the offences and to compromise the case.

¶35

This Court, uide order dated 24.04.2O23, directed the pariies and their respective counsel to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, for their identihcation and for recording the compromise entered between them.

¶36

Pursuant to the said direction, the parties along with their respective counsel have appeared before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, who in turn, has

¶37

¶38

¶39

identiherl tltr: prtrties anr,l rccorded the compr;mise . lhe Joint Memo of Compron'ris ,: .rnd the Ilcport of the Secretarr ar-e. tl;rce I on record.

¶40

In r.ie',, t f the abovc, I.A.Nos.2 and I o. 2O.l1i are allowed. Consequenrlr, the Criminal Petition is allowe d rtrrrl he proceedings in C.C.No.il!r of 2006 on the file of learned r,/ tdd tional Chief Metropohta I lv,lagistratc, Nampally, Hyderabacl e.gainst the pe titioner-Ac(-' rs ed are hercby quashed suk,ject Lc th e petitioner pzrying an arl rlint of Rs.5,000 / -(Rupees Five'lhousa-rd Only) to The Drrector, Serir- rk Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A7 c..,lr: .I;2 Ba9262Zg, State Btrnk ,f India, Shantinagar Branch (2Crt 7()), IFSC Code :SBIN001)001'( , MICR Nc.5O00040571 and Rs.5,0(X)/-(liupees Five Thousan,l Crr- r) to the Tclangana High Court Advo<:a es Association, I{l,derabad', rv ttrin a periocl of two weeks from torl:11 , rrnc file proof of thc same ir-r' o he Registr-v .

¶41

As a s;cr u :1, the misccllaneous Pe titions. pen I^j 1g if an1,, s[a11 stand closec..

¶42

Sd/. P. N,{GI\BHUSHAMBA ASSIS'TANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEcfloN &rrcen

To,

1 The V Additic r a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (.luven le Court), Nampally,

¶47

Hyde rabad

¶48

1. The Station l l ruse Officer', Gopalapuram Police Statio r, Hyrlerabad District.

¶49

Two CCs to t'r: Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Iit,rte :f Telangana at Hyderabad C UT)

¶50

4 One CC to SRt K. PRASHANT, Advocate tOpUCl

¶51

One CC to SRt K, CHAtTANyA, Advocate tOpUCl

¶52

Two CD Copies

¶53

,r(^

¶54

Note: Amount of Rs. 5,000/- -( Rupees Five thousand only ) has been paid by sri. K. PRASHANT, counser fdr thb petition", ,i-Jir".t"o'oy the Hon,bie couri order dated:2O-06-2023 to the " Teiangana Hign court Rovo6aiei' ni.o.irt,on , daled.03-07-2023 qn! .rr.!90^_.!vfe1o vide proof of c6mptianle USR No58797 ;iari "i

/^/

HIGH COURT

DATED:20106'2023

COMMON ORDER

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 IN/AND

¶60

;;,'ii" Jt
,/
a+
'r
l Nn C,
a, i ilNt + ),
o
{..
."i,r-', ,,i'
.2
k.1,, '::)

¶61

CRLP.No.407ti ot 2023

¶62

THE CRIMINI L. PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶63

t..$-^
(
---_9-

Smt a Rama Bharathi v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt a Rama Bharathi v. 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

A.Ravinder Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Saleem Uddin Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Badhe Shobha Rani Vs State of Telangana and another

P. Butcha Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Smt a Rama Bharathi Vs State of Telangana

Lankala Sreekanth Reddy Vs State of Telangana