Allowed

Siripuram Pavan v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC25 Sept 2023CRLP/7099/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings involving Sections 376, 417, 493, and 496 IPC. The court found the relationship consensual and based on a compromise, holding no allegation of rape existed, thus quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C. No. 1020 of 2021 under Sections 376, 417, 493, and 496 IPC are quashed.

Siripuram Pavan Vs State of Telangana and another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7099 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Siripuram Pavan, S/o. Late Yadagiri, Age. 31 years, Occ. Software Employee, Rl/o,H.No.17-1-382/N/26,Nagarjuna colony, Champapet, Saroornagar,Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana and another, through P.S. Saroornagar Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana.

¶12

Bheemagoni Deepika, Wo.Late B.Venkatesh occ.others,Age.30Yrs,R/o.H. No.8-1 -60/E,Road No.5 Padmanagar Colony,Karmanghat,Saroornagar Mandal Ranga Reddy Dist. C/o H.No.18-6'135, Near MCH ground Gowlipura, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶14

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 S.C No. 1020 oI 2021 on the file of 1st Special court cum District Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 202'l

¶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 of all further proceedings including the appearance of petitioner in S.C.No.1020 of 2021 on the file^'1st Special court cum District Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist. ,At L.B Nagar, during the pendency of Criminal petition.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C pray[ng that in^{:the--circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/De-facto complainant to withdraw in S.C. No. 1020 oI 202'1 pending on the file of the Special Judge for fast tracking The cases relating to atrocities against women-cum-Xlll ADJ-Cum-Xlll MSJ Ranga Reddy District against the petitioner /Accused.

¶19

-=__7 r/

¶20

l.A. NO:2OF 2023

¶21

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 betvveen the respondent No.2 and the petitioner in S.C No. 1020 of 2021 pending on the file of the Special Judge for fast tracking The cases relating to atrocities against women-cum-Xlll ADJ-CumXlll MSJ Ranga Reddy District against the petitioner /Accused.

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri JANARDHAN GOUD SUNKARI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor Teiangana behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri M. MURALI MOHAN Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.7O99 OF 2O2L}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The Criminal Petition is filed^{under Section482 of the} Code of Criminal Procedure^{(for. short Cr.P.C.) by the} petitioner/Accused to quash ttre^{prleedingsin S'C No.1020} of 2O2I on the frle of the l"t^{Special Court-cum-DistrictJudge,} Ranga Reddy District. The alleged^{offencesagainst accused are} punishable under Sections 376^{(2) (tt), 417, 493, 496 of Indian} Penal Code.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitioner and learned} Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State^{and perused the} record.

¶30

The complaint was filed^{on14.O8.2O2O bythe} respondent No.2 stating that she^{got acquaintancewith the} petitioner in the year 2Ol4 and petitioner ProPos;d^{to marry} her. Having discussed with^{the f1rqilymember-s.,} ,thpy^{dld not} , ,- : ., accept for the marriage. In^{the monthof August, 2015 he took} her to house and had sexual^intercourse with^{her by}

¶31

¶32

promising that he u.ould marry her in any circumstances. Petitioner was working in Bangalore and accordingly, she went to Bangalore. On 03.03.2017, the petitioner tied Mangalasutra (nuptial thread) and thereafter, they started living together as husband and wife. Later they also went to Ooty and stayed for some days and returned back to Hyderabad. However, both the parties have hled compromise petition before this Court.

¶33

4 . As seen from the complaint and the statement, the relationship between petitioner and respondent No.2 was consensua.l. In fact, there is no allegation that at any point of time, the petitioner had forced her in any manner.

¶34

Keeping in view that both the parties have entered into compromise and none of the allegations made in the complaint would attract the offence under S'ection 376 of IpC for rape, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the prayer for quashing. Accordingly, proceedings are quashed. Costs of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the Bar Associates of the High Court for the State of Telangana.

¶35

!-7
,/

¶36

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed

¶37

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶38

closed

¶39

s D'^{- MoH D: sa+lHit#tisrtst} q

/ITRUE^COPY"

SECTION^OFFIGER

T"ii*:#:l:klt+3#jf If l,'rsh[$:*'i[]{i1"sffi^:r' roP^{u cr} ; H-T,iil^{f#'itsulil"??H:f'Y#"6it'sia'ie}

¶44

Two^{CD CoPies}

RUBt

ADK

HIGH COURT

DATED:2510912023

ORDER

CRLP.No.7099 ot 2021

cr'
<.
.S"
I
s*
I l)
,J-
<br>\
*
;,i,.t,'1'rii

¶55

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶56

0)c{'} tre

Siripuram Pavan v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siripuram Pavan v. State of Telangana and another

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

The State of Telangana Vs Madavi Sheaku

Jatoth Dayakar Vs State of Telangana

Vattipulusu Surya Chandra Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Talasila Vijaya Mohan Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Smt. Kota Vijay Kumari Vs The State of Telangana

Miss. Badarla Dheeralesa and 3 Others Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another