Allowed

Ravi Krishna v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Mar 2023CRLP/921/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding a compromiseable offence, the Telangana High Court allowed the plea upon confirmation that a valid compromise had been entered into. The proceedings were quashed after verifying the identification of parties and acceptance of the combined memo of compromise along with payment to the Sainik Welfare Fund.

What did the court decide?

IA Nos. 1 & 2 of 2023 allowed; Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No. 678 of 2021 quashed; Rs. 10,000 deposited to Director Sainik Welfare.

Ravi Krishna Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENOER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 921 OF 2022 ALONG WITH I.A Nos. 1 AN D 20F 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

Ravi Krishna, S/o I V Srinivasa Rao Aged about 5g years , Occ. Deputy General Manager, ,Union Bank of lndia At present working'at Audit'jni lnspection, Central Office Annex Pattabhi Bhavan, Saifabad, H"yderabad

¶9

2 Sri D V.^Dhanunjgyq .^{Rao, S/o D RamaRao,Agedabout 61 years,Occ.} Retired-GM Ryo Flat No. 20'1, Mavifia Apts.,Jubitee-Hilts, Shaikpet,- Hyderabid - 500 033

¶10

3 qmt G_ok.a Sarqini Devi, W/o K Venkateshwar Rao Aged about 63 years, Occ. Retired Officer Fl/o Flat No. 102, H.No. 3-4-526130 and 31, Sri Satyanarayana Enclave, Hyderabad - 27

¶11

4 Sn B.V.J ,Rama Rao, S/o B.V S. Prasad Rao Aged about 61 years, Occ. Retired Officer R/o Ftat No ^2-0.1^{..Q1avyas park lteights,DefericeCblony,} Sainilcpuri, Hyderabad - 500 094. (Wrorigly noted as^-8.G. Rama Rao in th'e F.rR)

¶12

5 Smt. S.. Viswalathqr Wo P.K. P-remchanth, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Asst. General_ Manager R/o No. I D Costa Layout,^-Coxtown, Banlalore - 560 0Sr; Karnataka

¶13

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.7, 3 to 6

¶14

AND

¶15

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶16

2 Smt. Jaggavarapu Vanaia Kumari, Wo G. Jaipal Reddy, Aqed about 45 years, Occ. Housewife R/o H. No. 1-19-80/79/80, Vijaylpuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Kapra, Hyderabad - 500 062

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶18

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 Criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.2 i.e., FIR/Crime No. 67812021 of Kusaiguda police Station, Rachaionda on the file of the xlx Additional Metropotitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Matkajgiri in the interest of justice.

¶19

¶20

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the ,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminil ietition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of aI further proceedings in FrR/ crime No] 61812021 ;t K_usaiguda Porice station, Rachakonda on the f]re of the XrX eoor rraeiioporitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Markajiiri incruding arrest of the petitioners, ;;;;i;; disposal of the above Criminal petition.

¶22

I.A. NOs: 1 & 20F 2023

¶23

Between:

¶24

Smt. Jaggavarapu Vanaja Kumari, W/o G. Jaipal Reddy, Aged ahout 45 years, Occ Housewile R/o H N_o l_19 aOISi[eO, Vliylprri Cotony, Sainikpuri, Kapra, Hyderabad - 500 062

¶25

...RESPoNDENT No.2/DEFACTo coMPLAINANT

¶26

AND

¶27

Ravi Krishna. S/o I V Srinivasa Rao Aged about 5g years , Occ. Deputy General I,4anaoer. Union -^Bank _of^{lndia"At FresL,iiworx,nget Auditand}

¶28

tnspecrion, cen-trat office ann"i pattaLnlahuu"nl"s'"Lord, Hyderabad

¶29

Sri D.V. Dhanuniava Rao, S/o D Rama Rao, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Rerired Grvl Rro Frai r.ro 2d1, Ma;iila'apG i;;ir;"iiii.: sn"irc.t,'iio.i*"ti"d - 500 033

¶30

Smt. Goka Saroiini Devi W/o K. Venkateshwar Rao Aged about 63 years, Occ. Rerired Offtcer R/o rrrt rvo. iO)-,- i.iio.'1"_+_szot30 and 31, Sri Satyanarayana Enclave, Hyderabad _ 2l--'

¶31

Sri B.V.J. Rama Rao. S/o B.V.S. prasad Rao Aged about 61 years, Occ. Retired officer R,o Fiat ryo^ ^2^0], sravvis FJrt'"H1]g'ht", Defence coronv. F Sainitcpuri, t.R.) Hyderabad - 500 oe+. (Wroristt ".r;;;''Ei.Gl Ru;; ir;"-i; ihd

¶32

Smt. S. Viswalatha, Wo p.K. premchanth, Aged about 5Z years, Occ. Asst. General. Manager R/o No. 9 o Costa Gyoli, L&ti*t'ei"6"r";" _-ioo'oi?, Karnataka

¶33

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.7, 3 to 6

¶34

6 State of Telangana, Rep. by public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶35

...RESpONDENT No.1/RESpONDENT

¶36

Petition under Section 320 Rtw 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum ot crounoi of iriminair p"tiiro", it. High court may be preased to permit the petitioneianJ the responde"t N;.2, i; compromise the above case by quashing the offences in FIR/Crime No. 67812021, dated 12.09.2021, Uts. 420, 4Og:415, r iO_A rpC, XusaiguAa eoiice Station, Rachakonda, on the fite of XtX Addl. Mei;p;ita-n Magistrate,-CyO"r"O,i at Malkajgiri against the petitioners/accuseO frf o s g io i.

¶37

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023

¶38

Petition under Section 320(2) Rlw 4BZ of Cr.p.C praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminai petition, th; High courl may be preased to quash the FrR/crime No 6zg/202.r , iated 17.09.2021 , Uls 42O, 409,415, 120_8 tpC, Kusaiguda potice Stafion, Rachakonda, on the fire of XrX Addr. Metroporitan Magistrate, cyberabad ai Malkajgirl against the petitioners/accused No's 3 to z, in view of the compromrse entered between, the petitioners and the respondent no.2.

¶39

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal^petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. V. DYUMANI, Advocate for the petitioners and the Additionar pubric prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri K. MURALIDHAR REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶40

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶42

CRIMINAL PETITION No.921 OF 2022 ALONG WITH I d,2 0F 2023

¶43

COMMON ORDER:

¶44

.^{This Criminal peritionis} filed trnder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (lor short^.,Cr. p.C.,,) to quash the proceedings in Crime No.678 ol 2O2l pending on the file of Station House Officer, I(usaigud. police Station, Rachallonda. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.7, 3 to 6 in the said case. The offences allegcd against the petitioners herein are under Sections^zl2o, 409, 41S and 120b of thc Indian penal Code (for short "lPC").

¶45

Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and learned Additional Public prosccutor for the state. perused the record.

¶46

During the pendency of the present Criminal petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant filed I.A.Nos. I ard 2 of 2023 to permit to compound the offences and to compr.omise the case.

¶47

¶48

The petitioners ernd the 2"d respondent^{havcappear-ed} before tl-ris Cor-rrt in^{persoll along rvith their counsclThe} parties rvere idcntifled by their respective^{counsel and on} examination and vcrilication^of their^{particulars from their} Aadhar Cards, they^{n'erc tallied. Thus, the identificationof both} the parties has^beeu established.^{The copies of Aadharcard} duly signed are also^filed.

¶49

Thc parties herein^{have filed a joint memo of compromise} statirlg that they have^{settled the disputes betrveenthem} amicably ancl^{2rl(trespondent has no objection to quash the} proccedings against thc^{petitioners herein in the above Case'} The said^joint memo^{of compromise is placed on record'}

¶50

In view that the^{parties have appeared before this Court} and also in^view of^{the compromise entered into betweenthe} petitioners and respondent^{No.2,I.A'Nos' Iand 2 of 2023arc} allowed. Consequently,^{the CriminalPetitionis allowed and the} proceedings in Crime^{No.678 of 2O2l pending on the file of} Station House Officer,^{KusaigudaPolice Station, Rachakonda,} are hcreby^{quashed against the petitioners-Accused Nos'7, 3 to} 6. Petitioners Accused^{undertaketopay anamount of}

¶51

Th.r-Lsirncl^{onlY) to The Director'} Rs.10,000/-(RuPees^Ten (Szn'irrgs^{A/c No} 52188926279, Sainik^{Welfale' HYdererbad} State^{Bank oi India' ShantinagarBranch (20070)' IFS(lCode} :SBIN002OO70,^{MICRNo 5O0004O57)'s'ithin a period of ten} days^{from today' and file proof ol thc same into the Rr:gi:;try'} As a^{sequel' the miscellar-rcousPetitions'pen(linll if any'}

¶52

shall^{stand close d'}

¶53

AssrsrA:Nd/'Rt'SEffi ,n/ //TRUE^COPYI/ sECtloN^oYrrcen

¶54

to'',

¶55

.^{-n. XIX Additional MetropolitanMagistrate' cyberabadat Malkalgiri'}

¶56

2.^{The Station Hout" Offi""'' Kusaiguda Police Statron' Rachak'lnda'}

¶57

3.^{OneCC to M/S V DYUMANI' Advocate IOPUC]} 4. One^{CC to Sri K MURALIDHAR REDDY' Advocate [OPUC]} th" P'bl'"';;;;cutor'^{Hish court ror the stateof relansana at}

, l1;*"r";:"

6.^{Two CD CoPies}

Njb

(ALONG^{WTHA COPY OF JOINT MEMOOF COMPROMISE)}

¶62

Note:^{Total Amount of Rs'10'000/-( Rupees Ten thousand only} as alre;ted^{bv ) the has Hon'ble Courtbeenpaid by} M/S^{V. DYUMANT'coun"r rllln"} "tt'"on"" vide^{orderdated20 03 20"'to *" ''nt"tor'} "^Sainik 97819^{Welfare of 2023 dated Hyderabad' 03'10'2023andfiled} Memo^{as proof} "' "",nou;;"ut

\k=-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010312023

COMMON ORDER

e STATE o
(o
o
J}
L
t5 $tI r@
) f
t.':'z
.!.-
I ni',e,r]j
-- -- - ii;j;

¶68

CRLP.No.921^{of 2022} ALONG WITH^{l.A.Nos. 1 &2 of 2023}

¶69

ALLOWING THE I.A.'S

¶70

& CRIMINAL PETITION

¶71

@K"

Ravi Krishna v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Krishna v. 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

Cherla Anand Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

A.C. Omkar Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Turaka Madhava Rayudu and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mohammed Abdul Muqeet Aman and 2 Others Vs State of Telangana and another

Nandigama Rama Rao Vs State of Telangana and Another

Anugu Madhavreddy and 6 others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others