Dismissed

Kandula ,Batthula Padmanjali, Hyd and 2 Otrs., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC9 Nov 2023CRLP/8528/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three related criminal matters involving petitions to quash proceedings and stay orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and revisions against non-discharge/order of attachment. The High Court held that factual disputes requiring detailed trial justify proceeding to trial and dismissed all petitions.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.8528 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.Nos.721 and 266 of 2019 dismissed.

Kandula ,Batthula Padmanjali, Hyd and 2… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8528 OF 2015

¶6

AND

¶7

",' CRL.R.C.NOS.721 AND 266 0F 2019

¶8

Crl,Petition No. 8528 ot 2O15

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kandula ,Bafthula Padmanjali, Wio.Srinivasa Tagore, aged about 30 years, Dentist, R/o.525, Harriet Avenue, # 1102, Shore View, M.N.55126, USA, Represented by her G.P.A. i.e. Dr.B.Parameshwar Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Sankar Reddy, aged about 60 years, Ophthalmologist, R/o 301, Kalinga Nest, Plot No.28, M.J.Colony, Moula Ali, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 Dr B Parameshwar Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Sankar Reddy, aged about 60 years, Ophthalmologist, R/o. 301, Kalinga Nest, Plot No.28, lt/l J Colony, tVoula Ali, Hyderabad.

¶12

B.Janki Lakshmi, Wo.Dr.B.Parameshwar Reddy. aged about 52^years. House Wife R/o. 301, Kalinga Nest, Plot No.28, M J.Colony, Moula Ali. Hyderabad

¶13

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No..1 to 3

¶14

AND

¶15

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Pubhc Prosecutor, High Court of A P.. Hyderabad. Respondent

¶16

Kandula Srinivasa Tagore, S/o.Paporeddy, aged about 34 years, Software Engineer, R/o..10-68, New Gaddiannaram Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad

¶17

...RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶18

Petitron under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that rn the circumstances stated rn the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the CC No. 420 of 2013 on the file of the Xlll f/etropolitan Magrstrate. Cyberabad at L. B.Nagar.

¶19

! I i , I Il ; _t

¶20

I t

¶21

l.A. NO: 2OF 2015^(CRLPMP. NO: 8584 O^{F 2015)}

¶22

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 in C.C.No.420 ot 2013 on the^{file of the} Xlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at^{L.B.Nagar, pendingdisposal of} Criminal petition.

¶23

This Pdtition coming on for hearing,upon^{perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the argumentsof Sri H} SUDHAKARA RAO ,Advocate for the^{Petitionerand Sri VIZARATHALI} ,^ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the^{RespondentNo.1 and Sri Mohd} Zalrullah, Advocate for the Respondent^{No. 2.}

¶24

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 721 OF 2019

¶25

Crl.Revision Case Under Sections 397 & 401 of Crl.P.G. ,^{1973 against} the order DATED 24-09-2018^passed in^{Crl.M.P.No.482ol2016 in CC No.420} ot 2013 on the file of the Court of the Xlll^{MetropolitanMagistrate, Cyberabad,} L.B.Nagar.

¶26

Between:

¶27

Kandula @ Bathula Padmanjali. Wo Srinivasa^{Tagore, D/o.late Parameswara} Reddy, agE, 38 years, Occ Dentist, Rio. 525,^{Harriet Avenue,# 1102, Shore Vtew'} M.N. 55126, U.S.A rep by her G P.A holder Bathula^{Rahul Shankar S/o late Krishna} Reddy, age, 31 years, Occ H R Employee, Elo.^{2-561121964/4,RamyaEnclave,} Shaikpet, Hyderabad

¶28

... Accused / PETITIONER

¶29

ANO

¶30

The State of Telangana, rep by Public Prosecutor, High^{Court for the State of} Telangana, at Hyderabad through P.S. S.H.O., Saroornagar,^Hyderabad.

¶31

2 K. Srinivasa Tagore S/o. Papi Reddy, age: 50^Years, Occ:^{Business,R/o.} H.No.^'10-68 , New Gaddi Annaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

¶32

( R 2 impleaded as per Court Order dated 14-07 -2023 made in l.A.No.^{3 of} 2019 in Crl R C No 721 of 2019 arc amended)

¶33

...RESPONDENT

¶34

IANO:1OF 2021

¶35

P"tition under Section^{482 of Ct P C- praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^{filed rn supportof the petition' the High Court,maybe} pi"r."a to extend the^{interim ordeisdtd: 10-7-2019in Crl,RC NO 72112019and} extended the same^{finallyit was extended in I A NO 1t2020 in crlRC No.72112019} dld. 10t212020^{pendingdisposal of the above Criminal Petition '}

¶36

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶37

Petition under Section⁴⁸² ol^{cr.P.c.prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High Court may-be} pieased to extend the interim ordei^{granted in l.ANoJof 2022 in Crl.R.CNo. 721} of2019,dt:24.04.2023pendingdisposaloftheCrl.R.CNo.721of2019'onthe file of lV Additional Mekopolitan^{Magistrate cum lV Additional Juniorcivil Judge,} L.B Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶39

PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P.C.prayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the High Court may be} pleased to exlend the interim ordei^{granted i1} !n !o^{1 of 2020in Crl.RC No 72'1} of 20'19 on dt. 10.02 2020^{pending disposal of the Crl' RC'}

¶40

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶41

Petitron under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^f iled^{in support of the petition, the High Courtmay be pleased- to} extend the lnterim^{Stay dated1O-O2-2O2Opassed in l'A No. 1 of 2O2Oin Crl} n C No 721 of 2Ol9^{plnding disposalof the aboveCriminal Revision Case}

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl.H. SUDHAKARA RAO}

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.'l : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: SRI MOHD.ZAFRULLAH}

¶45

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE^{NO: 266OF 2019}

¶46

Crl.RevisionCaseUnderSections3gT&4o1ofCrl.P.C.,1973against theorderDATED24.og.2olSpassedinCrl'M.P.No.482of2016inCCNo.420 of 2013 on the file^{of the court of the Xlll MetropolitanMagistrate,cyberabad,} L.B.Naga^r.

¶47

Between:

¶48

Kandula@BathulaPadmanjali,WoSrinivasaTagore,D/o'lateParameswara ti;;;;g:" 38 years occ bi:ntist.^{R/o. 525,} .Hanie-i^{Avenue1102. Shore.Vrew} frrf f,.f^-6SrlO U Sh^{rep.by ner C p n holder Bathula Rahul ShankarS/o lateKrishna} ii.iOy, ,g" Sr- V"rii^{Occ- U.n. Emptoyee,Eto.2-56t12t964/A. RamyaEnclave,} Shalkpet, Hyderabad.

¶49

.. Accused /PETITIONER

¶50

A''$

¶51

AND

¶52

1 State of Telangana, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. through P.S. S.H.O., Saroornagar, Hyderabad

¶53

2 K. Srinivasa Tagore, S/o Papi Reddy, age.50 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.10-68, New Gaddi Annaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

¶54

... Complainant / RESPONDENT

¶55

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶56

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.482 of 2016 in C.C.No.420 of 2013 on the file of Xlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar and pass

¶57

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. H. SUDHAKARA RAO

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶59

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 : SRI MOHD. ZAFRULLAH

¶60

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

¶61

THE H ON'BLE SRI J^{USTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶62

CRL.P.No.8528 OF²⁰¹⁵ And CRL. .C.Nos.72 I and 266 of^2(J19

¶63

COMMON ORDER:

¶64

1 Heard Sri H.Sudhakar Rao,^{learned counsel for the petitionersand} Srl Mohd. Zafrullah,^{learned counselfor the unofficial respondent andSri} Vizarath Ali, learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.}

¶65

2 Since the^point involved^{in all these cases is intertwined andsince} the parties to all the cases are^{one and the same,all these mattersare} being disposed of^{by this common order.}

¶66

3 Criminal Petition^No.852B of^{2015 was filed to quash the} proceedings against the^petitioners in C.C'No.420 of^{20L3 on the file of} the XIII Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.}

¶67

4 Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are^{wife and husband and first petitioner is} their^younger daughter.^{The second respondent is the husband of the} first petitioner and son-in-law of^{petitioner Nos.2and 3. The second} respondent lodged a complaint before^{the SaroornagarPolice Station oil} 14.10.2013 against the^{petitionerswhich was registered as a case in} Cr.No.l253 of 2008^for the offences^{punishable underSections42|i and} 406 of IPC. The case of the^{second respondentin the above casewas}

¶68

)

¶69

that his marriage with the first petitiorrer was perfcrnied on 29.7.200L. The secorrd respondent was rvorking in USA as software engineer. The first petitioner completed her BDS course. Th€j l,irst petitioner joined the second respondent in USA in 2001, but by afflux of time, she lost affection and love towards the second respondent and the petitioner I'los.2 and 3 added fuel to the fire as the second respondent did not heed to their advice and demand. The petitioner Ncs.2 and 3 advised the first petitioner to take divorce from the second respondent and compelled the second respondent and made him to execute a divorce settlement deed under threat and fear of gefting him and his family members jailed by falsely alleging cruelty and harassment upon his wife. A petition for mutual divorce was filed. Thereafter, the first petitioner and the second respondent left for USA separately and wert: living separately there. Subsequently, the second respondent returned to India and came to know that the mutual consent petition filed by the first petitioner was withdrawn by the second petitioner styling hinrself as GpA for the first petitioner. On demand, the second respondent deposited Rs.35,26,600/in the name of his minor daughter. The second respondent was shown as guardian for the minor daughter though the first petitioner and the second respondent are alive. He also left and relinquished his right/title/interest over his flat and 2,303 sq. yards of land at Medchal,

."2,,

subject to his wife's paying Rs.23,60,4531- within six months from 03.3.2008, yet she has not paid it under instigation and guidance of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Though the first petitioner was in USA since March, 2008, P.W.2 filed false complaint in Court and got registered FIR No.1073 of 2008 under Sections 498-4, 406 and 420 IPC at P.S, Saroornagar. Therefore, the second respondent lodged the above complaint which was registered as a case in Cr.No.1253 of 2008 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. After investigating into the case, the police filed charge sheet, which was numbered as C.C.No.420 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Court of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar.

¶74

5 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Crl.P.No.L4765 of 2OL3, which was disposed on 12.08.2014 with a direction to the trial Court to proceed with the trial of the case, but the presence of the petitioners shall not be pressed for each and every adjournment.

¶75

6 Contending that some important questions were not raised in the earlier^quash proceedings, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition. The first petitioner filed a case in 61-FA-09-2069, dated 06.10.2010 before the District Court, Second Judicial District, Family Court Division, State of Minnesota, Country of Ramsey, USA, in terms of the settlement agreement dated 28.02.2008 executed between the first

¶76

¶77

¶78

petitioner and the second respondent wherein the USA court passed judgment dissolving the marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent and that the second respondent herein admitted before the Family Court at LISA with regard to transfer of funds to a tune of Rs.35,26,600/- to their minor daughter voluntarily and without the knowledge of the first petitioner. The said money stands in their daughter's name. The second respondent himself introduced the second petitioner as guardian for the minor girl, therefore, there is no prima facie case against the petitioners. It is the further contention of the petitioners that even as per the charge sheet filed by the police, Saroornagar, disclose that the alleged amount is pending before the Andhra Bank and it is an evidence under the Banker's Book Evidence and the record clearly disclose that no amounts were transferred in favour of the second petitioner or any other person. There is nothing on record about the role of the third petitioner in the entire charge sheet. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.420 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, by way of filing Crl.P.No.B52B of 2015.

¶79

7 While the things stood thus, the first petitioner filed Crl.M.p.No.482 of 2016 before the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, under Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking to discharge from the

¶80

¶81

proceedings of the said calendar case. The learned trial Court, in its order dated 24.09.2018, in the^{above Crl.M.P., observed that the} averments mentioned in the^{petitionare all factualaspectsand there i5 a} strong suspicion about the^involvement of the^{first petitioner in the} alleged crime and hence a^detailed trial is^{required and accordingly} dismissed the said^{petition.Aggrievedthereby, the first petitioner filed} Crl.R.C.No.266 of 2019.

¶82

8 Be that as it may, the learned trial Court issued Order dated 07.4.2019, authorising an attachment by the District^Magistrate or Collector, as^per Section 83 Cr.P.C.^{in Form No.8, stating} that^{the first} petitioner is suspected to have committed the offence of cheating and misappropriation of^{property punishable} under Section 420 and 406 IPC and the warrant issued in^{that connection was returned} and^{that she is} avoiding service of summons / warrant.^{The learnedtrial} Court^further observed that it was shown to its satisfaction that the^petitioneris concealing herself to avoid the service of the said^warrant and thereupon a^proclamation has been or^is being duly^{issuedand publishedrequiring} the fist^petitioner to appear^to answer^{the charge within} thirty days and that the first^petitioner is^{possessing certain land} /^{propertypaying} revenue to the Government^{as set out} in the said order. Accordingly authorised and requested^{the District Magistrate} / Collector to cause the

¶83

¶84

said land / propefi to be attached, in the rrranner specified in Clause (a) or (c) or both of sub-section (4) of Section 83 and to be held under attachment pending the fufther order of the Court. Aggrieved thereby, the first petitioner fiied Crl.R.C.No.72L of 2019 seeking to set aside the order dated 07.4.20L9 passed in C.C.No.420 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate - cum^.- IV Additicnal Junior Civil Judge, L.B,Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶85

9 As seen fronr the material available on record, there was an agreenrent of settlernent dated 28.02.2008 wherein both the first petitioner and the second respondent agreed to share certain money among themselves and to share some property to their daughter. The further allegation of the second respondent is that both parties agree that their daughter will be in the custody of the first petitioner till she attains majority. It is also the turthei' allegation of the second respondent that the first petitioner will pay Rs.23,60,453-00 to the second respondent towards compensation ior holding the flat at Hyderabad and vacant land admeasuring 2303 sq. yards in Medchal village and he will relinquish.

¶86

10 Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that all the cases filed by the petitioners fail for the reasons that in the discharge petition the learned

¶87

¶88

¶89

trial court itserf observed that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner; the triar court, in order to secure the presence of the first petitioner, issued warrant of attachment as she is concearin!7 herself to avoid the service of the said warrant. Moreover, the specific allegation of the second respondent was that the first petitioner defaulted the agreement between the parties. All these matters are factual which require a thorough investigation as well as trial. so it is not a fitcase to throtue the proceedings at the initial stage. It is only upon a detailed examination only, the truth will come to light whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not.

¶90

11 Hence and for the reasons stated supra, Criminal petition No.g52g of 2015 and Crl.R.C.Nos.721 and 266 of 2Ot9 fait and accordingly they are dismissed.

¶91

t2 As a sequel, miscellaneous petii,ons, if any, pending in all these cases shall also stand dismissed.

¶92

SD/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY IS R

¶93

//TRUE COPY//

¶94

SECTION OFFICER

¶95

To, 1. The Xlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L_8. Nagar Ranga Reddy District With Records if any)

¶96

The Station House Officer, Saroor Nagar Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

¶97

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

¶98

One CC to Sri. H SUDHAKARA RAO, Advocate tOpUCl.

¶99

One CC to Sri. MOHD ZAFRULLAH, Advocate [OPUC].

¶100

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/11/2023

COMMON OROER

1 $S STAIG
7
g c B7riB2o2t Zf)
+i
_*
D . : 1t-',!

¶106

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:8528 oF 2015

¶107

AND

¶108

CRL.R.C.Nos. 721 AND 266 0F 2019

¶109

DISMISING THE CRL. PETITION AND CRL.REVISIONS CASES

Kandula ,Batthula Padmanjali, Hyd and 2 Otrs., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandula ,Batthula Padmanjali, Hyd and 2 Otrs., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Koka Narasimha, Hyd and 6 Othrs Vs G. Jayasimha, Hyd and 5 Othrs

Karnati Mohan Reddy and Another Vs the State of Telangana and 2 Others

V.Seenaiah, Hyd., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Padma Priya Shabada, Usa and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Votukuri Yadagiri, Nalgonda., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Prof. Venkateswarulu Peesapati,Hyd and Another Vs Public Prosecutor ,Hyd and Another