Allowed

Govinda Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Aug 2023CRLP/6518/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Inquarterments over land dispute involving ossession of Embassy aowers of the proprietor and forensic the petitioner accused in both Crl. Pet. and A No. 2 & 3 of 2023. The High Court allowed the petitions, quashed the FIR, and permitted compounding of offences subject to payment of court fees and filing proof of same.

What did the court decide?

Provisions were allowed; FIR No. 327 of 2023 was quashed, and offences permitted to be compounded upon payment of Rs. 5,000 to Director Sainik Welfare and Rs. 5,000 to High Court Advocates Association

Govinda Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

l.A.NOS.2&3oF2023

¶6

IN/AND

¶7

CRIMINAL PET]TION NO: 6518 0F 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

g-qvlryDA RAO, S/o Rama Rao, aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture Fl/o ptot No. 503, Vaibhavari Towers, HUDA Layout, Rait Vihar, Seritingairpifiyl R;;# ilay District. ...peitriOr.r'emlnd"CUSEO-

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented through public prosecutor at High Court, Hyderabad

¶12

Nagani Saibabu, S/o Yadagiri,.aged 32 years, Occ: private Employee R/o 5_ 14, Ghanpui Village, Medchal Mandat, Medchal Malkajgiri District'

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminat petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the FIR No. 327 ot 2oz3 dated 08. os.2023 on the rile ori. s. Medchal, cyberabad District, as against the petitioner/ accused, in the interest of justice.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023

¶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 stay all further proceedings, including the arrest of the petitioner/accused; in FIR No. 327 of 2023 on the file of p. s. Medchal, cyberabad District, pending disposal of this Criminal petition, in the interest of justice.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 &3 OF 2t 2:r

¶18

Between:

¶19

Nagani Saibabu, S/r r';,dzrgiri, aged 32 yr:ars, Occ. privat: EmpI: lr:e R/o 5-14, Ghanpur Villagr:, tu1 ;r ,:iral N/andal, [,4edchal lValkajgiri District [:et,tioner/ Defacto Complainant ir lA No:; 2 and 3 of 2023

¶20

And

¶21

The Statr: ol T ,lanoana Represented through Public pr,t;:,:u11,r. u, * nn Court, Hyder rl a<l^'

¶22

2 GOVINDA F)( ), S/o Rama Rao, aged about 60 yerrrs, Or:r;. Agriculture R/o Plot No. 1103, \ ail)h,avarr Towers, HUDn Layout, R: il Viha r, Se"rilingampally, Ranga Redc,, )i-. trict. Re rsponrlt:nts , Aicusi:d in' both l A Nos il .'nd 3 0f 2023

¶23

r.A.No. 2 0f 123 3

¶24

Petition undr:r Section 320 (6) of Cr.p.C R/u,. Sect r n z 82 of Cr.p.C. praying that in the )ir cumstances slated in the IVlenror:rnc urn ( f Grounds of criminal Petition,t're l-igh court may be pleased to perrn t the petitioner to compound lhe offerrc.rs atouse out of FIR No.327 of 2023 ctn h() fi|., of the police Station,l.4echdal, [;y rc ra bad District.

¶25

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2023

¶26

Petition undr:r :iection 320 (2) of cr.p.c praying that irr 1e )ircumstances stated in the Memcrra rdunr of Grounds of criminal petiti.n,the l-ligh court may be pleased to coml)ounc the offences arouse out of FIR No 327 of .roz3 on the fiie of the Police Static,n . Ir,4 rc rdal, Cyberabad District.

¶27

This Petitior c rnring on for hearing, upon perusrng l.l- e: l,4emorandum of Grounds of Crirrr ina I I r:tition and upon hearing the arguments c f Srj /ENKAT R AO Advocate for the Pelil orrer in Crl.Petition and Respondert No:2 in LA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 and Sr :;. Ganesh Asst. Public Prosr:cutor cn behalf of the Respondent No.1 rr :lrl.Petition and l.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2( ?-:) ;tnd of Sri K. Laxman Rao, Advo:; ie for the Respondent No.2 in Crl Petitior., anrj petilioner in l.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2A ;3

¶28

The Gourt made the^'l :rllowing: ORDER

¶29

I \

¶30

HON'BLE SMT. T,USTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶31

I.A.Nos.2 &3of 2023 IN AND CRIMINAL PETTTION No.6 518 0F 2o23

¶32

COMM oNORDER:

¶33

It is submiflecl by learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1 that during pendency of the present criminal petition, the parties have compromised the matter arrd accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 & l) of 2023 have been filed to permit them to compound the offences and to record the compromise between them.

¶34

Vide Order dated lg.OT.2023, this Court directed the parties along u,ith their respective counsel to appea_r before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, for identification and to submit a report. 03.^pursuant to the above said direction issued by this Court, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, has identified the parties and submitted a report dated 22.02 .2023 and the same is placed on record.

¶35

In view of the above, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2023 are allowed. Consequenfly, this Crimina_l petition is allowed

¶36

¶37

arcl the I r()cccdings against petitiotrcr_/irlcuscd i11 FIR \rr i:r27 r' 2C)23 on th(-. rrk: of the StzLtir,n Ilor-r ;i: Officcr, N,Ir:dch::1^D,rlice Station, registered for thc rl .e n:cs under Sc<:t ion I 1 ()f thc indian penal Code iLncl Sr:r:tion 3 (1) (r) (s) r,l th, Sr:hedulecl Castes and thr ScLr:rlul:d .lribes (Prt:r entir 11 ol Atrocitics) Act, are }-rereby qLrers h:d subject to .J)ai./n)^{er ,} of an amoLlnt of Rs.5,0C0/- {l:lupees Five 'lhotrsa:c ( rnly) to the Director, Sainik r,ry'clfarr:, Hl.derabad (Savi ngr; ,\ /c.No 52 lg892627g, Stat: Elarr< :1. India, Slrantina.r rr ljralch (2OOTO), IFSC Ccdc: Ijt.tlNi)O2O070, MICII llt I,O{)004057) ancl Rs.5,OOC/- (Fl ,rpt.cs Fivc Thrusarrl ( rnry) ro the Telangana Higlr colrr: Aclvocates r\sso<:iatit r, t{yderabad, within a period of t,no u,ecks from toda-v anri il : proof of thc same belore the Registrl [)end n g miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand clo sr ,l

lF.'-'.-

Siy- l,lOHD. ISilIAIL ASSII;TAN T REG IgfRAR //TRUE COPY// S|:CTION I FFICER

¶42

The lX Additir, al [\4etropolitan Magistrate , N/edchul Malkajgiri at lvledchal.

¶43

The Station l-1c .rse r]fficer, lVledchal police Station ,]yberirb ad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶44

The Secretary^-l gl- Court Legal Services Committ.e, Hie h Corlrt Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶45

The Secretary. [r:langana High Court Advocates Ar;soci;a1i,: 1 l- yderabad.

¶46

Two CCS to Pr rl c PrOsecutor, High Court for the S tate ). r'elangana at Hyderabad. (3 l-T )

One CC to SRt. VENKAT RAO, Advocate topUCl 7. One CC to Sri K. LAXMAN RAo Advocate (OpUC)

¶51

Two CD Copie ( ALONG wtTH A Co Y JOINT MEMO OF COMPROMTsE)

¶52

Note: Amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousanr M/s. K. Laxman Rao, counserrorthe Respondents :J:l::::'_,iln:# court vide order dated o4-og-2023 to the Terangana High court Advocates Association, Hyderabad vide Receipt No. 72825 dated 08-08-2023 and Rs. 5'000/- paid by sri Venkat Rao, counser for the petitioner to the ,, Director, Sainik Welfare Hyderabad , and filed Memo as proof of compliance USR No. 75606 OF 2023 dated 09_08_2023

HIGH^COURT

GACJ

DATED'04/08/20²³

\ \

COMMON^ORDEI

I⁽⁾²³ I.A.Nos.2&3r) IN/ANI) 2023 CRLP.No.6518'^o

¶59

z-=:=: 1lt-. i _ :r= 4r,'- ..
/( ,( 6\ '-7.'5.
a.<br>--) ,<br>2s ,qiJii i0n
)
''

¶60

(.'lLL.Pl'l'l l loN AI-LO\TING^I-I] A 3 olr^:{)l:i AND^{I,A, NOIi.}

,'
ffl
L... {o>

{ I I

/.,./.--

IN THE HICH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD \

¶66

Crl.P.No. G{otzon

¶67

Between

¶68

GOVINDA RAO S/o Rama Rao, aged about 60 years, Occ : Agriculture R/o Plot No. 503, Vaibhavari Towers, HUDA Layout, Rail Vihar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District .. Petitioner/Accused

¶69

And

¶70

State of Telangana, represented through Public Prosecutor at High Court, Hyderabad

¶71

Nagani Saibabu S/o Yadagiri, aged 32 years, Occ: Private Employee R/ o 5-14, Ghanpur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal Respondents/ Malkajgiri District Defacto Complainant

¶72

IOINTMEMO

¶73

FILED BY PETITIONER AND 2T.TD RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶74

1. It is respecffully submitted that various ""*;i;r.i instances have arisen between the petitioner herein and the defacto,cor4plainant with respect to the enjoymenf of the land in Sy No. 152 of Ghanpur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, belonging to Smt B.Raju Bai, a close relative of the petitioner herein, which resulted in registering of cases against each other. The defacto complainant, after registering the case in FIR No. 269 ol 20'23 on the file of P.S. Medchal, Cyberabad District against him, he has lodged FIR against the petitioner, as a counter blast, in FIR No.327 of^20'23

¶75

( -(\r... -<--:-o--)
)

¶76

¶77

ri;r:.-.r t.

¶78

on the file⁽ l'.S.Medchal, Cvberabad District,^for tlx t:ffences under Seclion 3u[ I f tPtl, St.ction 3(1)(')(, of SC ST (P)A) Act

¶79

1. Thereafterⁱ r,,as brought to the rlotice of the llna Rr:sp,tndent by the concerne<-l r clicr: tha t ihere h,as a Decree of perpelr-^a I injunction^rn O.S.No. [i'7 rf 1!t95 l;assed by civil court staring a;4,tinst the fanrily members^,rl [he rlefacto complainant and the said de'cre': ol perPetual injunction is irlso bincling on the defacto c o rnplainart/2na Respondenl ,\s a result, police registered tlLe cas,:r; against each other. Henc forth the Parties have muh-rally agree<I for an amicable solution tcr ' 'ithctrau, the cases against.each oth(]r.

¶80

1. It is r esp,:r .flrllv submiited that at the first instarLr:r:, tre second respondert d,:facto complainant along with his fir::nily members have tried t 'r interfelc r,r,ith the possession of the larcl owners of Sy No. 1ll2 c,f Iihanpur Village and on account of the sairl criminal trespass, zL a:ie was registerecl in FIR No- 269 of 2A'.:.3 against the seconci resp indent and others, at the instance o: the pet tio;'rer herein, who is a cr .r taker on behalf of the land owrrers. The 2,a Respondent herein alonl v.ith his other family members, knowin;; lullv well that the larrd in S r^'\lo. 152 of Ghanpur Village is a pri,rate, property belongjnp; h the land owners/pattedars i.e. B.Rajubai and others, has buried a d :a'1 body of his paternal tmcle, Na63e -ni R,rjaiah, on 24.4.2023 in il portion of the land in Sy No. 151)- of Ghl:lpur Village. Though lLe :uried the dead body in violation of the c<:urt judgment and decre:e aled 22.5.1995 in O S No. 87 of 1995 pass3(; by the Court of Distric t lt Iuns:iff, Medchal granting decree of perpJhral injunction against the family members of 2.d Respondent, lre iras lodged a complaint r r FIR No. 327 of 2023 on the lile of .['.S. Medchal,

(\ \ :-.-s /

--1,*'

.-r'

1. The Defacto Complainant/2nd Respondent has agreed to withdraw the present FIR No.327 of 2023 on the file of P.S. Medchal, Cyberabad District for the offences under Section 341 of IPC, Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC ST (POA) Act for effecting compromise and likewise the petitioner also agreed to withdraw the complaint in FIR No. 269 of 2O23 on the file of P.S.Medchal, Cyberabad District for the offence nnder Sections M7,427 &506r/w 34l.P.C.

¶87

¶88

1. That the parties hereby agree that they shall not raise any kind of further disputes in furtherance of these F.I.Rs and hereby agree to withdraw all the allegations made against each other, unconditionally.

¶89

In view of the above. mirtual understanding and seftlement of the misunderstzridings of the parties, it is^'therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the FI R No. 327 of 2023 on the file of P.S. Medchal, Cyberabad Disbict and.pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶90

t Q\C (GovrNDA RAO) SAIBABU) PE'TMIONER 2NDRESPONDENT pa" A^,'";vZ-

¶91

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER COLINSELFOR 2NDRESPONDENT

¶92

¶93

; I ili I ; I I

¶94

) l i

¶95

I i

¶96

Cvberat .rc Distlict, against the petitioner h:reil, al.eging occurrence of rffer;rr r: rn,ler SC ST (PO,) ..\ct, as mentioned i;r,.ee r;aid FIlL.

¶97

1. lt is stib niited that pursuant to the said inc. dent tL:; ;tated in the FIR No. 2ri9 ol 2023 ott the frle oi 1,.S. Medchal, Cltelebad District, on 24..1.2Ct.1: , the land orvners/employors of thr: petlt otrer have initiated conten:]F i,roceeclings^{against the 2,.d Responde;r} l.erein and others r,r.ho a-e l one other than thc family rnembers ,,f the Judgment Dehtor':; n civil suit in O.S.No. 87 of 1995 on tlr,: fil<: of Court of District I l.unsiff, [4edchal.

¶98

1. While 1 re matter stood thus, the 2"a R,:r; pondent/ defacto complerir ,u t, on the intenzention of the land o,,nur,r,rs ,end the well wishers, hes ,rpproached the petitioner for amic r:,iy l.esolving the issue to :mairrtain cordiaI r'elations and a,Jree<l ,:,., rn.ithdraw the present I iR No. 327 of 2023 o;r the file of [.S. ]{r:rl,:haf Cyberabad

¶99

District a 'cl also agreed to cooperate to quash thr: saicl lr.J.R. The 2nd Respondt rrt/defacto complainant has also reali.zal hil; mistake of burl,ini; t ie dead body of fus patcrnal uncle in a p o.:tion of the larrd ir S.y Nb. 1l;2 cf Ghanpur Village belonging to th€ [:ind owners and

¶100

agreed :c exhume the said dead body an<l ket,p,/ relc,cate it in a designate I lru::iai ground of the village, in Sy lrk,. .)7 rmmediately and reprtr . tr the concerned authorities/Cou rt in co:.npliance of this uldr:rtalli tg

¶101

1. The petiti rn:r as such also agreed to withdr ar+, tf c FIR No. 269 of 2023 on tI r: ijlql 61 P.S. Medchal, Cyberabad Distri( t, lodged against the 2"d trler pc,nclent.

¶102

: :

¶103

.,)+-
)

Govinda Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govinda Rao 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

Allu Rama Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Dama Venu Gopal Vs The State of Telangana

Panga Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Manapuram General Finance and Leasing Limited, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Wahajuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Naini Harshavardhan Reddy Vs Nerasanametla Ravi