Allowed

Cheekatla Naresh Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Aug 2023CRLP/6688/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of FIR proceedings based on a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The court directed payment of funds to the Sainik Welfare Directorate and the Telangana High Court Advocates Association as a condition before quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in FIR No. 188/2023 subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 split between Sainik Welfare and the Telangana High Court Advocates Association.

Cheekatla Naresh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s41

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

l.A.NOs.2 AND 3 OF 2023

¶7

IN/AND

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6688 OF 2023

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6688 OF 2023

¶10

Between:

¶11

Chikatla Naresh Kumar, S/o. Cheekatla Rajaiah, Occ: Pvt.Employee Aged 39 Years, R/o. H. No. 4- 1 3/7, Mallaram Village, Bheemdevrapally Mandal, Hannrakonda, District.

¶12

Chikatla Lalitha, Wo. Rajaiah, Occ: Pvt.Employee Aged 57 Years, R/o. H. No. 4-13l7,lllallaram Village, Bheemdevrapally lt/landal, Hanmakonda, District.

¶13

Chikatla Raiaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, Occ: Pvt Employee Aged 63 Years,^Rl/o. H.No. 4-13l7, [Vlallaram Village, Bheemdevrapally Mandal, Hanmakonda, Distnct.

¶14

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 to 3

¶15

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 the^proceedings FIR No. 18812023 on the^file of^WPS, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶16

AND

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Pubilic Prosecutor, High Court For the State of Telengana, At Hyderabad.

¶18

Mrs. Bathula@Cheekatla Roshini, Occ.Pvt.Employee,^{Aged 23 Years,} lVlallaram Village, Bheemdevrapally Mandal, Hanmakonda District

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶20

As per the Court Order dated 09.08.2023 in LA>No.4 of 2023 surname of Accused Nos I to 3 are amended

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to^grant stay of all further^{proceedings in FIR No. 188/2023 on the file} of WPS, Warangal, Warangal^District

¶23

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the HighCourt may} be pleased to^{grant permission to file the present Criminal Petition seeking to} quash the proceedings FIR No. 18812023 on the file of^{WPS, Warangal,} Warangal District, in view of the compromise^{and to accord permission between} the Petitioners and the Respondent^{no 2.}

¶25

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2023

¶26

Between:

¶27

Mrs. Bathula@Cheekatla Roshini,^Occ. Pvt.Employee,^{Aged23 Years, Mallaram} Village, Bheemdevrapally Mandal, Hanmakonda District

¶28

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT

¶29

AND

¶30

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Pubilic Prosecutor,^{HighCourt For the} State of Telengana, At Hyderabad.

¶31

Chikatla Naresh Kumar, S/o Cheekatla Rajaiah,^{Occ: Pvt.EmployeeAged 39} Years, R/o. H. No. 4-13l7, Mallaram Village,^{BheemdevrapallyMandal,} Hanmakonda, District.

¶32

Chikatla Lalitha, Wo. Rajaiah, Occ: Pvt.Employee^{Aged 57 Years, R/o.H. No.} 4-1317 , Mallatam Village, Bheemdevrapally Mandal, Hanmakonda,^District.

¶33

Chikatla Rajaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, Occ: Pvt Employee^{Aged 63 Years,R/o.} H No. 4-13i7, [t/allaram Village. Bheemdevrapally^{Mandal, Hanmakonda,} District.

¶34

..RESPONDENTS/AGCUSED No.1 to 3

¶35

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 the proceedings in FIR No. 188/2023 on the file of Warangal WPS, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶36

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{A/lemorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and uponhearingthe argumentsof Sri ARUN} KUMAR DODDLA, Advocate^{for the Petitionersand respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in} Crl.Petition and in l.A.Nos.2 and 3 ol^{2023 and the Public Prosecutor for the} State of Telangana on behalf of the^{RespondentNo.1 in Crl.Petitionand in} l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 of Sri^{CHERUKU RAVI KUMAR, Advocatefor the} Respondent No.2 in Crl.Petition and^{in l.A.Nos.2and 3 of 2023.}

¶37

The Court made the following: COMMON^ORDER

¶38

/''

¶39

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶40

I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of2023 IN/AND CRIMINAI, PETITION No.6688 oF 2023

¶41

COMMON ORDER:

¶42

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 that during pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2023 have been filed to permit them to compouncl the offences and to record the compromise between them.

¶43

Vide Order dated 24.O2 .2023, this Court directed the parties along r,vith their respective counsel to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, for identification and to submit a report.

¶44

Pursuant to the above said direction issued by this Court, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, has identifiecl the parties arrd submitted a report dated 04.O8.2O23 ancl the same is placed on record.

¶45

( {

¶46

¶47

In view of the above, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2023 are allowed. Consequently, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against petitioners/ accused Nos.l to 3 in FIR No.188 of 2023 on the file of the Station House Officer, Warangal Women Police Station, Warangal District, are hereby quashed subject to payment of an arnount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousald Only) to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c.No.52 188926229, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch (2OO7O), IFSC Code: SBINOO2OO7O, MICR No.50OO04O57) and Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, within a period of two weeks from today and file proof of the same before the Registry.

¶48

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶49

stand closed.

¶50

To,

¶51

1 The Principal^{JuniorCivrl Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First} Class,^Hanamkonda'

¶52

2.. The^{Station House Officer' Warangal Women Police Station' Warangal} District.Two CCs

¶53

1l District.Two CCs^{to the Public.Prosecutor'High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} HYderabad^{(OU I )}

¶54

One^{CC to SRI' ARUN KUMAR DODDLA' Advocate [OPUCI}

¶55

/ I//,.

¶56

¶57

One CC to SRt CHERUKU RAV| KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl

¶58

6 Tvro CD Copies Dr ,, d

¶59

Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise

¶60

¶61

NOTE: Amount oairt [y.SRl ARUN KUMAR DODDLA, Counsel for the Petitioner towards';6oosg9 by cosi "i Fi.. ;;;0; ( Rupees Five thousand onry) directed bv the Hon'bre court , oateJ oili oirl'nn to the Director, sainik Welfare Hyderabad (Savrngs ny..r.r".szleeg)"oz')s, strt" Bank of tndia. Shantinagar Branch eolOzOt riSC'"i"0. SB|N0O2OO70, M|CR NO.500004057 and an._amount of Rs.5,000/- rnO tt"O Memo of proof of Comptiance USR No 78e77 of 2023oriJ-iioa:2d2s

¶62

NOTE: Amount oaid by.S.Rl ARUN KUMAR DODDLA, Counsel for the P_etitioner towards imposed,, Oy ^cosioi R'..';,il# ( Rupees Five thousand onty) direcred by the Hon'bte court , ori"i'66loe.zo23 to the Tetangana High Court Advocates Association, Hya"r"U"d-rr?an amount of Rs.5,000/_ proof of c.rplir""Jijs"ri.io.zaszz or 2023 dated: ?i[rtli"r1y"*" "

I' )

HIGH COURT

GAC, J

DATED: 0910812023

ORDER

l.A.NOs.2 AND 3 OF 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6688 OF 2023

¶70

-
,.. 1
21 AUE zon
: ij' v'---, \i:=- .._>. -

¶71

ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION

¶72

AND l.A.NOs.2 AND 3 OF 2023

¶73

¶74

rN rirE^{rIrcFI couRr tSHrtfJ^iJE oF TELANGANA Ar}

¶75

LLWorzozt CRL.^{P. NO}

¶76

warangal'^{warangal District)} n ",31ti*S,

¶77

BET^WEEN:

¶78

Mrs.^{Bathula@CheekattaRoshint'}

¶79

lru:il-rui'Y$'fr::i^{lffi?kondaDistrict}

¶80

PETMONERJCOMPLAINANT

¶81

AND

¶82

I The State^{of Telangana'} lru; 2"':'"t*^# :"T''^en sana' a.t-HYderabad'

¶83

"",'"::

¶84

' 'fffiilxi: iriii1:ff.'1"1}"-

¶85

Mandal

¶86

' ffi{liN,ti;,#;t Hanmakonda,^Distrtct'

¶87

a cheekatla^{Ralaiah'S/o Venkataiah'} 3

¶88

¶89

ttiLtfr'"tj*,'#il"*1";;;illi^{Yi['JJo.o,*s,AccrsEDNo 1}

¶90

¶91

Jr^r-'-"t'""'"t**

¶92

1 . lt^{is submitted thatbasing on the Complaintgrv} herein,^{betbre the WarangalWPS Warangal'against the Petitioners herein' FIR} No.^{i88/2023orr the 'rrle of Warangai WPS' Warangal' Warangal DistrictThe} Petitioners^{herein is arrayedas Accusedno1 to 3' in the said case'}

TMI

It is submittcd thLt durinq thc penclency of the said case, with the intervention

¶97

o1 the elders and well wishers. rhe matter has been compromised by the both the parlies and thc 2n'r Responclcnt herein has decided to withdraw the said case, filed by lrel agrtin't rlrc I,eriti,-rr,.'r'.

¶98

Inview of the ab.ve, it is therei.re prayed that this Hon'ble court may be

¶99

pleased to rcco.tl the corrPro,ise arid to quash the proceedings FIR No. s

¶100

18812023 on the llle of Waranga) WPS, Warangal, Warangal Districr

¶101

(), J^n"'( c.lt B PETITIONER Nu.l RESPONDENTNO.2

¶102

Cl'l 'Uue^-f

¶103

PETITIONEIT No. 2

¶104

6-^--t - €'ll '^{P--^J} PETITIONEIT No 3

¶105

¶106

COLIIJSEL FOII l'l II: Plll'll'IONEIiS COUNSEL FOR THI] RESPONDENT NO.2

Cheekatla Naresh Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheekatla Naresh Kumar 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

Salla Manjula @ Manjula Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kura Nagaraju Vs The State of Telangana

Eediga Anjaneyulu Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Satish Pinnamaneni Vs The State of Telangana

Prashant Samanway Vs The State of Telangana

Suleman Bin Sayeed Baom, Vs The State of Telangana