Partly allowed

Pandrangi Pradeep Krishna v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Jun 2023CRLP/4159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed Sessions Court order (SC No.156 of 2021) charging petitioners for dowry and SC/ST offences. Court allowed modification petitions based on recorded compromise and decree of divorce by mutual consent, directing accused to pay fines to Sainik Welfare and Advocates Association.

What did the court decide?

Sessions Court order SC No.156 of 2021 quashed; parties permitted to compromise matter subject to payment of Rs.5,000 to Sainik Welfare and Rs.5,000 to Advocates Association.

Pandrangi Pradeep Krishna Vs the State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

TUESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

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

¶6

IN/AND

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4159 OF 2023

¶8

l.A NOS. 2 AND 3 0F 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

BHOGI POORNIMA, D/o Bhogi Narsingh KumarAged about 30 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. Flat No. 101, Navya Archids, Sriramnagar, Puppalguda, Gandipet Mandal.

¶11

.. Petitioner/ Respondent No. 2 in both

¶12

Ard)

¶13

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶14

PANDRANGI PRADEEP KRISHNA, S/o. P. Ram Mohan, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Private Employee, Rt/o. Door No.9-3-192, Flat No. 4O2,4lhline, Symalanagar, Guntur West Mandal.

¶15

PANDRANGI RAMA LAKSHMI, W/o Ram Mohan, Age about 48 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. Door No. 9-3-192, Flat No. 4O2, 4lh line, Symalanagar,

¶16

. Guntur West Mandal.

¶17

PANDRANGI RAM MOHAN RAO, S/o Samabaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, R/o. Door No.9-3-192, Flat No. 402,4th line, Synlalanagar, Guntur West Mandal.

¶18

PANDRANGI MEGHANA, D/o Ram Mohan, Aged about 27 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. Door No. 9-3-192, Flat No. 402, 4th line, Symalanagar, Guntur West Mandal.

¶19

CHALLA VENKATA RAMA SATISH, S/o Late Subba Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ.Pvt. Service, Rio. Door No. 9-3-192, Flat No. 4O2, 4lh linel Symalanagar, Guntur West Mandal.

¶20

... Respondents/ Petitioners

¶21

l.A NO: 2OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 320 (6) of Cr.P.C praying that in the ciicumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the

¶23

High Court may be pleased to PERfi/llT the Respondent No.2 herein to record the compromise and QUASH the SC.No.156 of 2021 Daled 20.O7.2021 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trail of Cases under SC/ST (PON Act-1989 Cum Vll Additional District Sessions, Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323. 504 lPC, Section 3( 1 )(r)(s) of SC and ST (PoA) Act-2015 .

¶24

l.A NO: 3OF 2023

¶25

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 and QUASH the SC. No.156 of 2021 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trail of Cases under SC/ST (POA) AcCl 989 Cum Vll Additional District Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 lPC, Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC and ST (PoA) Act-2015 as the same is untenable either on facts or under law .

¶26

Crl.P.No. 4159 ot 2023

¶27

Between:

¶28

PANDRANGI PRADEEP KRISHNA, S/o. P. Ram lr4ohan, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. Door No. 9-3-192, Flat No. 402, 4th line,

¶29

i Symalanagar, Guntur West Mandal. 2. PANDRANGI RAMA LAKSHN/|, W/o Ram Mohan, Age about 48 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. Door No. 9-3-192, Flat No. 402, 4lh line, Symalanagar, Guntur West Mandal.

¶30

PANDRANGI RAM MOHAN RAO, S/o Samabaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, Ri/o. Door No. 9-3-'192, Flat No.402, 4th line, Symalanagar, Guntur West lvlandal.

¶31

PANDRANGI MEGHANA, D/o Ram tvlohan, Aged about 27 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. Door No. 9-3-192, Flat No. 402, 4lh line, Symalanagar, Guntur West lt4andal.

¶32

CHALLA VENKATA RAMA SATISH, S/o Late Subba Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ.Pvt. Service, R/o. Door No. 9-3-192, Flat No. 4O2, 4lh linel Symalanagar, Guntur West It4andal.

¶33

Petitioner/ Accused Nos. 1 to 5

¶34

AND

¶35

1.THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶36

BHOGI POORNIMA, D/o Bhogi Narsingh Kumar Aged about 30 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o. Flat No. 101, Navya Archids, Sriram nagar, Puppalguda, Gandipet l\4andal.

¶37

,..RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶38

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to QUASH the SC. No.156 of 2021 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trail of Cases under SC/ST^(POA) Act-1989 Cum Vll Additional District Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar for the offence under Sections 498-4, 323, 504 lPC, Section 3('1)(r)(s) of SC and ST^(POA) Act-2015 as the same is untenable either on facts or under law

¶39

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶40

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 STAY all further^proceedings in SC.^No.1 56 of 2021 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trail of Cases under SC/ST^(POA) Act1989 Cum Vll Additional District Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar for the offence under Sections 498-4, 323, 504 lPC, Section 3('1 )(r)(s) of SC and ST (POA) Act-2015 including appearance of Petitioners pending disposal of the main Criminal Petitionⁱⁿ the interest of^justice.

¶41

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. PRADEEP REDDY,Advocate for the Petitioners in Crl.Petition and Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in l.A. Nos. 2 and 3 ot 2023 and of the Sri S. Ganesh Asst.Public Prdsecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in Crl.Petition and l.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2023 and of Sri Nikani Venkatesh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in Crl.Petition and Petitioner in l.A. Nos. 2^and 3 of 2023^.

¶42

The Court made the following:^COMMON ORDER

¶43

¶44

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶45

r.A.NOS.2 AND 3 0F 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.4159 OF 2023

¶46

COMMON ORDER:

¶47

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 the parties to compromise the matter.

¶48

¶49

2.. Vide order dated 25.04.2O23, this Court, directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, along v'ith their respective counsel for their identification and for recording the compromise entered between them.

¶50

Basing on the said drrection, the Secretary. Legal Services Committee has identified the parties and recorded 1.he compromise. The joint memo of compromise and the report of the Secretary are placed on reco rd.

¶51

In view of the above, LA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.C.No.156 of 2027 on the file of learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST' (POA) Act-1989-Curn VII Additional

¶52

¶53

¶54

District Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, against the petitioners-Accused .Nos. 1 to 5 are hereby quashed subject to petitioners paying an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to The Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c.No.52188926279, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch (2OO7O), IFSC Code :S8IN0O20070, MICR No.500O04057) and Rs.5,00o/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the "Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad', within a period of one month from today, and hle proof of the same into the Registry.

¶55

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

¶56

stand closed.

¶57

r SdlG. SIREESHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //'RUE coPY' sEcrloN 8"'"'*

¶58

Il rn"nse""iar,ii::',?,Hjisfl.i,r[:[J:':1,:'":1',T#:$:13"t'-'"'.sf#'fe'J'

¶59

,. ?'.1'Silf8irHouse^{officer, wPS, Gachibowli} '^{cvberabad'Ransa Reddv} a. ?'lrtit'83",.^{Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at} Hdverabad^(oUT)

¶60

ill"aEi.-^{bli.'k'pnnoeEPREDDY' Advocate[oPucl}

¶61

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶62

( along with^{a copy of JointMemoof Compromise)}

¶63

[tfi+nfi+ffi**Hiffi]t

HIGH COURT

GACJ

DATED:1310612023

)

ORDER

t.A NOS. 2 AND 3 0F 2023

¶70

IN/AND

¶71

Crl.Petition No.4159 of 2023

¶72

-,'' ---j:"::-..---.^ Jrrr
I \ '.: !
j'
':.
()
i zo irrt ?ul
::
P.'.t\ ',r ! .-I

¶73

ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION

¶74

flA

¶75

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABA

¶76

c,R.L.P.No.q l\3 oF 2023

¶77

BETWEEN:

¶78

1	PANDRANGIPRADEEPKRISHNA S/o.P.RamMohan, Agedabout32years, Occ: PrivateEmployee, afo.DoorNo.9-3-192,FlatNo.4o2,4'hline, Symalanagar,GunturWest Mandal.
2	PANDRANGIRAMALAKSHMI Wo^{Ram Mohan,} Ageabout 48^years,Occ:HouseWife,.. R7o.Door No.9-3-192,FlatNo.^{4o2,4th line,} Symalanagar,GunturWestMandal.
3 )	PANDRANGIRAM MOHANRAO S/oSamabaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Pvt.Service, R7o.Door No.9-3-192,Flat No.4O2,4th Symalanagar,GunturWest Mandal. ,f",
4	PANDRANGIMEGHANA D/oRam Mohan, Aged about 27 years, Occ:House^wife,. R7o.DoorNo.9-3-192,Flat No.4O2,4thline, Symalanagar,GunturWestMandal.
5	CHALLA VENKATA RAMA SATISH S/oLate SubbaRao, Aged about47^years,Occ:Pvt.Service, Rfo.Door No.9-3-192,Flat No.4O2,4th Symalanagar,GunturWestMandal. J line, ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSEDNos.l to5

¶79

AND

¶80

1 THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
Through Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature for
the State of Telangana,
at Hyderabad.
,(
fl U"^^ l"l$'*
?fu^M
? d,^ #,:t- .--Z B

¶81

2: BHOGI POORNIMA

¶82

I Dlo Bhogi^{Narsingh Kumar} ] nged about 30 Years,^{Occ: House wife,} , Puppalguda, R/o. Flat No. 101, Gandipet Navya Mandal.^{Archids,Sriramnagar,} "^RESPONDENTS

¶83

]OINT MEMO^{FILEDBYTHE PETITIO NERS AN} D 2"d RESPONDENT

¶84

It is submitted that^{the RespondentNo'2 herein had lodgeda} complaintDatedlg.ll'2020againstthePetitionershereinbefore the P.S IT^{Corridor, Cyberabadwho in turn had registereda crime} with FIR^No.BS of^{2020 Dated 79'LI'2O2O'The Police' after} conducting^{so called investigation, had filedthe Chargesheet before} the court^{belowand the samd istaken cognisancewith} SC.No.1i6l2o21for s.^{the offencesunderSections 498-4, 323, 5O4} IPC, Section :(r)(r)(s)^{of SC & ST (PoA) Act-2015 against the} Petitioners/Accused^{Nos.l to 5 herein for the alleged offences'}

¶85

It is submitted^{that the Resfondent No'2only to harasshim} had lodged the^{compliantwithout any truth, after the present} compliant the^{RespondentNo.2 had realized the same and at the} intervention^{of elders and well-wishers,the RespondentNo'2herein} approached^{the Petitionersto amicablysettle the matter ' Pursuant} tci the settlement,^{the Respondent No.2 herein agreedfor the} withdrawalofalltheallegationsmadethereinandliveherlife separately.^{As such the Petitioner No.1 and the RespondentNo'2} herein had filed^{Petition with FCOPNo. 86 of 2023 under section13-} B of Hindu Marriage^{Act on the file of Additional FamilyCourtRanga} Reddy District at^{LB Nagar for dissolution of marriage Dated} 14.10.2018.^{The Hon'ble Court upon hearingthe allowed the same} in its order^{Dated31.03.2023and Marriageof the PetitionerNo'1} and Respondent^{No.2 held on 14.10.2018is Dissolvedby granting} P^{(L* l,M{-;.} r 22

¶86

¶87

,<<,E. {

¶88

Decree of Divorce by mutual Consent. Therefore, the alleged offences against Petitioners herein are liable to be quashed.

¶89

It is submitted that this Hon'ble court is fully empowered to exercise its discretion to invoke section 482 of Cr.P.C. and requires the above SC to be quashed in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice.

¶90

That in view of the above compromise, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to QUASH the SC. No.156 of 2O2l on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trail of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-1989 Cum VU Additional District Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar for the offence under Sections 498-4, 323, 5O4 IPC, Section 3(r)(r)(s) of SC & ST (PoA) Act-2015.

¶91

d. Therefore in view of the above amicable settlement, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to QUASH the SC.No.156 of 2021 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trail of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-1989 Cum VII Additional District Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar for the offence under Sections 49B-A, 323, 5o4 IPC, Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC & ST (PoA) Act-2015 and pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstanceq of the case and in the interest of justice.

¶92

Hence the Joint Memo.

¶93

eJ.l-

¶94

PLACE: HYDERABAD v- DATE: 24.04.2O23 COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ,?w)_t*;

¶95

PE IONE CCUSED

¶96

PETITIONER No.2/ACCUSED

¶97

¶98

P ITIONER No.3/ACC SED "4,^{t^,-- lL}&,,d* PErrTro N ER rvo. sZnicU{ro

¶99

r$Ja-COUNSEL FoR RESPoNDENT No.2

¶100

["-*

¶101

PETITION No.4,iACCUSEL

¶102

'81,-''..^RESPONDENT No.2

¶103

'-.\

¶104

)

¶105

Pandrangi Pradeep Krishna v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandrangi Pradeep Krishna 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

Kalumula Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

Nitturi Rajalingu Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mr.Madhusudhan Gochhikar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Chandra Kalavathamma Vs The State of Telangana

Azmath Fatima Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Ravuri Sarath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana