Allowed

Smt a Rama Bharathi v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jun 2023CRLP/4076/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an criminal petition and interim applications under Sections 482 and 320 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings after the parties entered into a compromise. The compromise was recorded by the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee following the death of a deceased complainant.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition and I.A.No.2 and 3 are allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.386/2007 are quashed against petitioners subject to payment of Rs.5,000 to State Bank of India and Rs.5,000 to Telangana Hig

Smt a Rama Bharathi Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132541

¶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: 4076 OF²⁰²³

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt A Rama Bharathi, Wo.A.^{Vasudeva Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ '} Housewife. R/o.Flat No.20l, Francis^{Apartmbnts,West Marredpally'} Secunderabad

¶11

D.S.Murthv, S/o.late D.Rama^{Rao, Aged about 71 years, Occ:Pensioner'} R/o.Plot N6.18, Simhapuri Colony,^{West Marredpally, Secunderabad.}

¶12

3 Smt.D. Tilothama, Wo.D.S.Murthy,^{Aged about 64 years} . Occ . HousewifeR/o. Plot No. 18, Simhapuri Colony,^{West Marredpally, Sec} underabad.

¶13

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶14

AND

¶15

State of Telangana, Rep by its^{Public Prosecutor,HighCourt, Hyderabad'}

¶16

Late Dr.Doodala Bharathi,^{Wo.lateD.Rama Rao (died)}

¶17

2nd Respondent. expired on^{22.07.2022 Hence 3rdRespondentis}

¶18

representing 2nd Reipondent ...Proforma Respondent

¶19

Smt. K. Yashodhara,^{Wo.K. Murali Krishna, Aged 57 years' occ. Housewife} R/o. C-104, Wellkin Park Apartments,^{Begumpet, Hyderabad500016}

¶20

...L.R. Of thE^{2Nd RESPONDENT}

¶21

Petition under section 482 of^{Cr.P .C prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the High court may} be pleased to^quash the cc and^{record the compromisebetween the petitioners} ,nd th. 3rd Respondent in the^{light of the MOUdated 14.O4.2023 and quash the} cc No.3B6/2007 on the^{file of the IV Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate,} Nampally, Hyderabad, as against^{the Petitionersherein.}

¶22

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶23

Petition undr Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that n the circumstances stated in the l/lemr:'a rdum of Grounds of Criminal Pt:tition 1 re ligh Court may be pleased to stay^, rll proceedings including appeararce of tl'e p=titioner in C.C. No.386 of 2007 c, lhe file of the Hon'ble lV Adrlitional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Nampal v. Hyderabad

¶24

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023

¶25

Petitton u n rie: [iection 320(6) of Cr.P.C praying that n the circumstances stated in the N4enro attdum of Grounds of Criminal Pe titron, t're tligh Court may be pleased to oermi t re Petitioners herein to compou rd the <rfferrces arising out of C.C. No 386 11 12()07 on the file of the Hon'ble l',,r Adc 3hief tvletropolitan Magistrate, Namoall ,, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶26

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2023

¶27

Petition uncler Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memor rrdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, tlre Fligh Court may be pleased to rec,: r'd the corrtpromise between the petitiorrer:; and the 3rd Respondent in the li thlof the l\4OU dated 14-04-2023 and qrash the CC.No 386 ol 2007 on the file o t-re Hon'ble VAddl. Chief Metropolitan Mrtgis;trate (Juvenile Court), Nampally, Hy rjerrabad, as against the petitioners; here n

¶28

This Petition ;c ming on for hearing, upon perusing th,.) Memorandum of Grounds of Crimini I Petition and upon hearing tlre ar luments of Sri K. PRASHANT Advoci t€ for the Petitioner and the Sri S. rl,llNESH Assistant Public Prosecutor on b-.half of the Respondent No.1 arrd of IiFil K CHAITANyA, Advocate for the Res rc ndent No.3

¶29

The Court made the ollowing: COMMON ORDER

¶30

t I

¶31

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶32

I.A.NOS. 2 AND 3 OF 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.4076 0F 2023

¶33

COMMO N ORDER:

¶34

In 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 registered will executed by the respondent No.2 / de_facto complainant, petitioners and respondent No.3 have entered into compromise.

¶35

On 24.04.2023, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners 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 2023 to permit them to compound the offences and to compromise the case.

¶36

3 This Court vide order dated, 24.04.2023, directed the parties 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.

¶37

¶38

Pr,rrsLr:^-tr to thc said direction, the p arries rrlong rvith their respectlve it() u-sel have appeared before the S\ec:-ett|y. l,egal Services Committee, i h: rn turn, has identihed thc partie,s zrnd recorded the comprornise. lhe ,Joint Memo of Compromisr: a.trj tlre .?eport of the Secretarl' arc p.aced on record.

¶39

In vi:q of the above, I.A.Nos.2 ancl :i ol iO23 are allowed. Conseqr cn:11 t hc Crimrnal Petition is allowe d an,l _he proceedings in C.C.No.ilti ' of 2OO7 on the file of learn,-.d I'V ,r.dditional Chief Metropolitan Mzrgisl.rate, Nampally, HyderzLlre <l zLgainst the petitionr:rs-A: ;r- scd arc hcreby quashed sut,ject to th(l petltioners paying arr a1n )r- nt of Rs.5,000 / -(Rupees Five lhour;a rd Only) to The Director, SeLjr ik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A7 c.i'Jt:.52 188926279, State Birnk ,f India, Shantinagar Branch (2,CtC7O), IFSC Code :SBINOOllO07( , MICR No.5OOOO4057) and Rs.5,Or)t,/-(ttupees Five Thousan,l c,nJ,r) to the "lelangana High court Advo< ares Association, Hl,clerabaLd', vr tlLin a period of two weeks from toc[a.5, , :lnd file proof of thc samc inl o h: Registrl,.

¶40

As a s<:: -rt:I, the miscellancous Petitions, pen ling if anv, shall stand closed

¶41

''i'JJ,^{i,i'f'tf HESISHiA}

¶42

/,TRUE^COPY// SECTION.OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

Magistrate,^{Nanrpe ly' Hycierabad}

¶45

1 The lV^{l\dclit { 'n rl Chief Metropolitan} Hy derabad

¶46

uram^{PoliceStatl(n}

¶47

2 The Statlon^{- crlse Officer' Gopalap} District High^{Court f')r the Slate of Telangana}

¶48

J Iwo C(.s^{t: I le} -Public^P'osecutor at^{HYd€ rat'a( '( JU l )}

¶49

One CC to SRt K. pRA Advocate toPUCl

¶50

ITANYA Advocate I.PUC]

¶51

One cc to sRl . "ro,"'o'' 6. Two cD copies

kan/

e_{

fr;,;pm?!,gt'.,:,"'l#t$l;"fl,"tril,iti"iij,,+l,tp,},;t

t I

HIGH COUR']"

DATED:2010(.12023

COTUIMON OF DER

l.A.Nos.2 and 3i ot 2023

¶62

2
HE STA 14:
,. ,6
,l
.C
/ -:,
l:)
t,. 1 I IUt 2$A
\ .,_ )
*'
t,
<br>.: i1L'. r_.1-rt;9 t .,
:_:uz

¶63

tN/At tt)

¶64

CRIMINAL PE T'lTlON NO: 4076 OF 2023

¶65

THE CRIMINI L PETITION !S ALLOWED

¶66

( ( ,, )
( \ \ 't-'

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