Quashed

Kurra Ramesh Goud v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC20 Feb 2023CRLP/7828/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the Criminal Petition, quashing proceedings against petitioners 2 to 7 for offences including trespass and mutiny, holding that trespass does not arise in a domestic dispute where the house belongs to the wife/petitioner 1.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners 2 to 7/A2 to A7 in C.C.No.2445 of 2020 for offences under Sections 498-A, 448, 427, and 506 IPC are quashed; proceedings against Petitioner 1 continue.

Kurra Ramesh Goud Vs The State of Telangana and another — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY THE TWENTIETH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE} PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7828^{OF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Kurra Ramesh Goud, S/o.Rajamouli,^{Aged about 58 years, occ Business,} n/.o.rf No ,a-g-t z/1 , Sireet^{No.6,HMT Nagar Nacharam, Medchal District}

¶8

2 kuiia Viiavari*mi, Wo.Ramesh^{Goud, Aged about 47 years, occ Housewife,} nrc.rl tt6.,+-g-tzli, Street^{No,6,HMT Nagar Nacharam,Medchal District'}

¶9

J Ktrrra Raiu Goud. S/o.Ramesh Goud,^{Aged about 33 years, occ Business,} rilo.n Nol,+-s-t z/i, Street^{No.6,HMT Nagar Nacharam, Medchal District'}

¶10

4 kurra Shiva Krishna Goud,^{S/o.Ramesh Goud, Aged about29 years,. occ} e-r"in"ir, RJo.H.No.,4-9-17i1 ,^{Street No.6, HMT Nagar Nacharam,Medchal} Diskict

¶11

Jaiutj Venkatesh, S/o.Mallaiah^{Goud, Aged about 52 years, occ Business,} Rlij.noao No.56, C5^{Bakery,NandhanavanamMeerpet, R R District'}

¶12

6 .liiri"-visantnu. Wo.Ven(atesh,^{Aged about44 years, occ Housewife,R/o'} Rciio No.so, C5 Bakery,^{Nandhanavanam Meerpet,R.R.District}

¶13

7 J;'r*. %t,thi. wi6.sunit,^{aged about 37 years' occHousewife,} nlo'r-t. f.to a-g-r z/i,^{Street No.6,HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Ivledchaldistrict'}

¶14

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED^{1 TO 7}

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The State of Telangana, represented^{by its Public Proseculo-J,High-Court for} ...RESPONDENT/STATE

¶17

tn" StiIi-oi f"irngina it Hyderabad

¶18

2 Kurra Mangamma, Wo.Kuria^{RameshGoud, Aged about 51 years, occ} housewife,?o.H.No.4-54,^{Makthavillage, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal} district

¶19

...RES'.NDENT/..M'LA'NANT

¶20

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High courtmay} be^pleased to call for the^{records relatingto cc.No.2445 of 2020on the fileof} the court of the lv Addl.Metropolitan^{Magistrate-cumlv.Addl.Junior civilJudge} Cyberabad at L-B.Nagar, and^{quash the proceedingsin CC.No2445ot 2O2O '}

¶21

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the High courtmay} be pleased to stay all further^{proceedings including appearance of the petitioner} in cc.No.2445 of 2O2O on the file^{of the lv Addl. MetropolitanMagistrate-cum}

¶23

lv.Addl. Junror^{r)ivilJudgeCyberabadat L B.Nagar, perrl ng disposalof the} criminal^petitton.

¶24

This Petiti )n coming^{on for hearing, upon perusrng llre lr'4emorandum of} Grounds of^{Cri ninaPetitionand upon hearingthe z t1:um:nts of Sri A'} PRABHAKAR^R, \O, Advocate^{for the Petitioner anri the : t. blicProsecutoron} behalf of lhe Reslondent^{No.1 and none appeared for the R:s;pondentNo 2'}

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

¶27

-:-1 I,

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7828 OF 2022

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

I . This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings agajnst the petitioners/A1 to 7 in C.C.No.2445 of 2O2O on the frle of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

¶32

Heard Sri A.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the l"t respondent - State.

¶33

The 2"4 respondent frled a complaint stating that he was married to A1 in the year 1983. Both are blessed with four daughters. However, ,4.1 was having an affair with A2 and they were living separately. She was living in a house bearing No.4-54. It is furtlrer alleged that on 2O.OI.2O2O, she went to Hyderabad and in her absence, all these petitioners have trespassed into her house and threw the household items out of the house by breaking open the lock. The neighbors informed the 2nd respondent regarding the alleged trespass by the petitioners herein. On the basis of the

¶34

¶35

i I I l I i

¶36

complaint filed o r-r 20.O1.2O2O, the police hled char1,;e s,heet for the offences under Sections 498 A, 44a, 427,506 r/w l4 IPC.

¶37

Learned :ounsel for the petitioners wruld slrbnrit that the complaint u'as made or-r thc basis of hezrrsav^(:vidence. Even according to h< r, she was not present when the inr;ir:lent had taken place, for the s,rid reason, the proceedings have to lre: quashed.

¶38

On the ,rther han<1. learncd Additional Prrt;lic Prosecutor submits thert t he rr: are specilic allegations .1bou!^{I,he petitioners} trespassing int ) the 1-rousc of the 2"d respondent rt-r her absence. The police har e examinecl three independent r.l,itrtt:ss,:s who are neighbors citerI as L.Ws.2 to.l. [n the r:harg: sh,:et, it was specificalll, sta.ed that these petitioners we re prs{;en1. when the trespass had ta kcn place

¶39

Even according to the complaint, the petitic rt,:rs had broke open the lock a nrl trcspassed :r'rto the premises. Ho'tvever, it is not in dispute that the house belongs to A1. In thr: saic^{(:ircumstances,} when the A1 is the ou,ner and husband of thc 2n,l rr. spr>ndent, the question ol cri nintrl trespass does not arise. I-Io'r'r,'veI', since A1 continued to hz vc rclatior-rship u'ith 42, the same itrr -rld amount to cruelty as def ned undcr Scctiot'r 498-A c,f IP(1. IrL the said

¶40

¶41

circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against petitioners 2 to 7 I A2 to A7 against whom the allegation of criminal trespass along with A1 was made.

¶42

7 . In the result, the proceedings against this petitioners 2 to 7/A2 to A7 in C.C.No.2445 of 2O2O on the frle of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-lV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed. However, the proceedings against A1 shall go on for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

¶43

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

SD/-K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR L]D

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

'1. The lV Addl.Metropolitan^{Magistrate-cumlV'Addl Junior Civil Judge} Cvberabad at^L.B.Nagar'

¶49

, i#"st'""ti- Hiri"^{oiti."r, chatkesar potice station,Rachakonda District.} 5. +ffit6;i;'ir*^{proiii pib""t,iofuisncourt for the stateof relangana'} at Hvderabad^(OUT).

¶50

a. 6riJ'ic'iii s*dl.^{ihneHnrnR RAo,Advocate[oPUC]}

¶51

Two CD^Copies

HIGH COU RT

DATED:20 0212023

ORDER

/'a .,. s rAr[
o
.<br>/, /.
:, 0 l, , _t I rll "\ ; 1l

¶57

CRLP.No.,'828 of 2022

¶58

CRIMINAT PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶59

B ) ,-'
)
J-
c,1

Kurra Ramesh Goud v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurra Ramesh Goud v. The 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

Syed Akram Ahmed Vs the State of Telangana

Raghupathi Aakuthota Vs The State of Telangana

Sunkari Kistamma Vs The State of Telangana

Kandavalli Vasundhara Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s.Blue Dart Express Limited. Vs The State of Telangana

K Govind Raj Vs The State of Telangana