Allowed

Mamidi Muralidhar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Feb 2023CRLP/8536/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana quashed proceedings under Sections 498A, 506, and 323 IPC in CC No. 187 of 2017. The court allowed criminal petitions and interlocutory applications based on a verified settlement documented by the Legal Services Committee, directing a symbolic payment to the Advocates Association.

What did the court decide?

Provincial proceedings in C.C. No. 187 of 2017 quashed; I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 allowed; Rs. 10,000 payment to Advocates Association directed.

Mamidi Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE^{HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURAELE^{SRIJUSTICEK. SURENDER}

¶6

cRIMINAL PETITION No: 8536 OF 2022

¶7

ALONG WITH l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

lr,4amidi Muralidhar,^{S/o. Mamidi Somaiah' Age. 36 years, Occ. Pvt Employee} Petitioner I^{represents as GPA Holder for petitionerNo.2as per Court Order} dt.O6-02-2O23^{in l A'No 4 of 2022}

¶10

M.Yashoda,^{W/o.M.Somaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ. Housewife,}

¶11

B.Anitha. W/o.Satyanarayana,^{Aged 30 years, OccHousewife,}

¶12

B-satyanarayana,^{S/o.Somaiah, Aged 36 years, Occ. PrivateEmployee,',r}

¶13

V. Jyothirmai,^{W/o.Nivedith,Aged28 years, Occ.Private Employee,}

¶14

Nivedith Kumar,^{S/ o.Sudharshan, Aged 35 years,Occ. Private Employee,}

¶15

All are Fl/o.H.N^{o.12-11-1217 , Boudha Nagar, Warasiguda'Secunderabad,} Telangana.

¶16

...Petitioners

¶17

AND

¶18

The State of^{Telangana,Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings,} High Court.

¶19

...Respondent

¶20

Ivlamidi @ Matta^{Nalini, Wo.Mamidi Muralidhar,Age. 30 years, Occ. House} wife, R/il.No.^{4177, Village Singarajupally, MandalDevaruppala, Janagaon} District, Telangana'

¶21

...De-facto Complainant

¶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^{quash the proceedingsagainst the petitioners in CC No.187 of} 2017,^{tJls.4984, 506 and323IPC on the file of the Hon'ble XV AdditionalChief} Metropolitan^{lvlagistrate, Hyderabadat Nampally and pass}

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the [t4emorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to dispense^{with filing} of^{certified copies of FlR, Complaint,161} Statements and Charge Sheet in CC^{No,1 87 of 2017 before the Hon'bleXV} Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Hyderabadat Nampally.}

¶25

A. Nos: 2 and 3 OF 2022

¶26

Between:

¶27

Mamidi @ [/atta Nalini, W/o. It/amidi Muralidhar, Age. 30^years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o. H. No.4/77, Village Singarajupally, Ivlandal Devaruppala, Janagaon District, Telangana.

¶28

...Petitioner/Defacto Complainant

¶29

AND

¶30

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court

¶31

Mamidi lvluralidhar, S/o. IVamidi Somaiah, Age.36 years, Occ. Pvt Employee

¶32

R2 represents as GPA Holder for R3 as per Court Order dated:6-2-2023 in l.A.No.4 of 2022

¶33

M.Yashoda, Wo.M.Somaiah, Aged 50^years, Occ. Housewife,

¶34

B.Anitha, W/o.Satyanarayana, Aged 30 years, Occ. Housewife,

¶35

B.Satyanarayana, S/o.Somaiah, Aged 36 years, Occ. Private Employee,

¶36

V. Jyothirmai, W/o.Nivedith, Aged 28 years, Occ. Private Employee,

¶37

Nivedith Kumar, S/ o.Sudharshan, Aged 35 years, Occ. Private Employee,

¶38

All are Rl/o.H.No.12-11-1217 , Boudha Nagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad, Telangana.

¶39

...Respondents/Respondent

¶40

Petition under Section 320(6) 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^permit the respondent No.2/ Defacto complainant to withdraw the case in C.C.No.187 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble XV Addl. Chief tVetropolitan lvlagistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally filed U/s.498A, 506 and 323 IPC against the petitio ners/accused

¶41

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2022

¶42

Petition under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise and quash the proceedings against the

¶43

,p-

¶44

respondents No.2 to 7 in against C.C.No.1B7 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan lVagistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally

¶45

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI, Advocate for the Petitioners in Criminal Petition and Respondents No.2 to 7 in l.A.No.2 and 3 of 2022 and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in Criminal Petition and l.A.No2 and 3 of 2022 and of Sri RAVISH KEDIA, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition and Petitioner in l.A.No.2 and 3 of 2022

¶46

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶47

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER}

¶48

CRIMI^{NAL PETITIONNo.8536OF 2022} ALO^{Nc WITH I.A.NOs.2 AND 3 OF 2022}

¶49

coMMON^oRDER:

¶50

This Criminal^{Petitionis liled underSection482Cr.P.C.,} seeking^{toquashthe proceedingsinC.C.No.1B7of 2017,} pending^{on the file ofXV AdditionalChief Metropolitan} Magistrate,^{Hyderabadat Nampali-v'The petitioners herein are} accused^{Nos.l to 6 in the saicl case. The offences alleged} against^{the petitioners herein are under Sections49a-A! 323} and 506^{of Indian PenalCode'}

¶51

Heard^{learned counsel appearingon both sides and} learned^{Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State. Perusedthe} record.

¶52

During^{the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the} parties^{have compromisedthe matter and, accordingly,the} parties^{have filed I'A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 to permit them to} comPromise^{the case'}

¶53

Vide order^{dated 21.09.2022, this Court,alter recording} the^{submissions made by thelearned counsel forthe} petitioners^{as well as respondent.No.2, directed the parties to}

¶54

¶55

appear^{before the Secretan", TelanganaHigh Court Le gal} Services^{Committee, Hyderabad, for their idcntilication and vide} orders^{dated 06.02.2023and 13.02.2023,this Court has} extended^{time and also directed the Secretaryto submit a} report.^{In compliancewith the said orders,the Secretaryhas} submitted^{his report, on 21 'O2'2023'}

¶56

S. In the^{report of the Secretary,Telangana High Court Legal} Services^{Committee, Hyderabad,it is stated that in obedienceof} the orders^{dated13.O2'2023'the petitioner Nos.1, 3 to 6 and} petitioner^{No.2 rep. by GPAHolder i.e., petitionerNo.l and the} 2nd respondent^{have appeared beforehim along with their} counsel^{and on examination and verification of their particuiars} from their^{Aadhar Cards, they were tallied.Thus, the} identification^{of both the parties has been established.}

¶57

The 2"d^{respondent'hereinhas' ltled an afl-rdavit stating} that they have^{settled the matter amicably and 2'd respondent} has no objection^{toquash the proceedingsagainst the} petitioners herein in the^{above case.} The^{said joint memo} of compromise and the report of the Secretar5r are placed on record.

¶58

¶59

¶60

Z. [n vies'^{of the said report of the Secretary, TclanganaHigh} Colrt^{Lcgal ServicesCommittee, Hyderabadand also in vieu' of} the^{compromiseentered betlveen thepetitionersand} respondent^{No.2,I.A.Nos.2and i of2022 are allowed.} Con sequentl-y,^{theCriminal Petition isallowedand the} proceedings^{in C.C.No.1B7 of 2017, pending on the fi1e of XV} Additional^{Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabadat} Nampalll,,^{againstthe petitioners/A1 to A6 are hereby quashed.} petitioncrs/A 1 to A6 have undertaken to^pay an amount of Rs. lO,0O0/^{(RupeesTen Thousand Only) to the 'Telangana} High^{Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad',within a period} of ten^{days fromtoday,and file proof of the same into the} Registry

¶61

As a sequel,^{the miscellaneous Petitions, pendingif any,} shall^{stand closed.}

¶62

Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// (lD/tSECTION OFFICER

¶63

To,

¶64

l. The^{XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampafly} 2. The^{Station HouseOfficer, WomenPolice Station,} Begumpet, North Zone, Secunderabad,^{HyderabadCity District.}

¶65

Two^{CCs to the_Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶66

One^{CC to SRl. NAGESHWAR RAOPUJARI, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶67

One^{CC to SRl. RAVISH KEDIA, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶68

6- Two CD Copies

¶69

K an.r

¶70

(Enclosed a Copy of l,4emo of Compromise)

¶71

Note: Amount of Rs. 10,0001 ( Rupees Ten thousand only ) has been paid by Sri NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI, Counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble Court order dated.23 -02-2023 to the " Director. Saink Welfare Hyderabad , and filed lrilemo vide proof of compliance USR No. 28066/2023 of dated:14-03-2023

I)r Nr

-t

HIGH COURT DATED:2310212023

¶77

{ r{9 STA}i: i;1:
(!
15 $N ?ml
C()
\ r?

¶78

COMMON ORDER

¶79

CRLP.No.8536 of 2022 ALONG WITH l.A.Nos.2 and 3 ot 2022

¶80

THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶81

$9",,

Mamidi Muralidhar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamidi Muralidhar 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

Mahesh Singh Raj Purohith Vs The State of Telangana

Bojanapally Bucha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Ergam Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

M. Sree Ramulu, I.P.S Vs State of Telangana

Hari Sreedhar Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Hari Sreedhar Vs The State of Telangana