Disposed

Gundagoni Nagaraju v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Feb 2023CRLRC/1819/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. concerning conviction under Section 509 IPC, the High Court allowed I.A. No. 1 and 2 based on a post-pendency compromise between the accused and the complainant. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside.

What did the court decide?

The accused applicant was acquitted and the conviction and sentence were set aside. Pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

Gundagoni Nagaraju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s9 I

¶2

I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE^{FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE^D.NAGARJUN

¶7

l.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2022

¶8

IN/AND

¶9

CRIMINAL R EVISION CASE No:^{1819 OF 2009}

¶10

Criminal Revision Case filed^{UnderSections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.Cagainstthe} Order dated: 29-10-2009^made in^{Crl.A.No.02of 2008 on the file of the Court of the} Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional^{District and SessionsJudge,Nalgonda,} confirming the order dated:31-12-2007^{in C.C.No.238of 2006 on the file of the Court} of the Judicial Magistrate of^{First Class, at Nakrekal.}

¶11

Between:

¶12

Gundagoni Nagaraju, S/o Sathaiah, aged^{about 22 years, Occ:Auto DriverRyo} Bheemaram Village of Kethepally^{Mandal, NalgondaDist.}

...Petitioner

(Accused/APPellant)

AND

The State of A.P.,through the S.l. of^{Police, KethepallyP.S., NalgondaDist} Represented by the Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt, Hyderabad.}

¶17

Pandla Renuka,^{W/o. Pandla Nagaraju, aged about 36 years, Rl/o.} Bheemaram village of kethepally^{mandal, Nalgonda District.}

¶18

...Respondent

¶19

(ComplainanUProsecution)

¶20

lA Nos: 1 &2OF 2022

¶21

Between:

¶22

Pandla Renuka, W/o. Pandla Nagaraju, aged about 36 years, R./o. Bheemaram village of kethepallv mandal' Nalgond"llEEl,,,"""rDefacto comprainant

¶23

AND

¶24

Gundagoni Nagaraju, S/o Sathaiah, aged about 22^years, Occ:Auto Driver Rl/o Bheemaram Village of Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda Dist.

¶25

...RespondenUAccused

¶26

The State of A.P.,through the S.l. of Police, Kethepally P.S., Nalgonda Dist. Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶27

...Respondent

¶28

l.A.No.1 ot 2022

¶29

Petition under Section 320 (8) R/w 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/compla inant to compounding the offence Under Sections under Sections 506(ii), 509, 417 IPC and acquit the Petitioner /Accused from the said offences and set aside the Conviction in Crl.A.No- 02 of 2OO8 dated 29-10-2009 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum- Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda as confirmed in CC No.238 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nakrekal dated 3l-12-2007

¶30

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶31

Petition under Section 320 (6) R/w 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 to compound the offence under Section 506(ii), 509, ,417 IPC and acquit the Petitioner Accused from the said offences and set aside the Conviction in Crl.A.No. 02 ot 2OOB daled 29-10-2009 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda as confirmed in CC No 238 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nakrekal dated 3l-1 2-2007

¶32

CRLRCMP. NO: 2534 OF 2009

¶33

Petition under Section 397 (2) CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in C.C.No.238 of 2006 dt. 31-12-2007 on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal as confirmed in Crl.A.No.0212008 dt. 29-10-2009 on the file

¶34

of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl^{Dist. & SessionsJudge,Nalgonda,} pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M. SATEESH

¶36

Petitioner in Criminal Revision Case and Respondent^{No.1in l.A'Nos.1 and 2 of} 2022

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI MUTHYALA^MURALIDHAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶38

Respondent No.1 in Criminal Revision Case and Respondent^{No.2in l.A.Nos.l} and 2 oI 2022

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.2:^SRI NOMULA^SRINIVAS

¶40

Respondent No.2 in Criminal Revision Case and Petitioner^{in l.A.Nos'l and 2 of} 2022

¶41

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶42

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶43

I.A.Nos. 1 &' 2 OF 2022 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1819 OF 2OO9

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

This Criminal Revision Case is hled by the petitioner under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 29.10.2009 passed in CRL.A.No.2 of 2OOB on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Adclitional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 31.12.2OO7 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal, in C.C.No.238 of 2006, for the offence under Section 5O9 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶46

During the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Case, the parties have compromised the matter and accordingly, respondent No.2-de facto complainant filed I.A.Nos. I &,2 of 2022 to permit to compound the offences and to compromise thc matter, along with joint compromise memo.

¶47

This Court, vide Orders dated 09.02.2023 directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, for their idcntification and also directed the Secretary to submit a report. In compliance with the said Order, the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, has submitted his report dated 1O.O2.2023.

¶48

In the report of the Secretar5z, Telangana State High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, it is stated that in obedience of the orders dated 09. O2 .2023, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have appeared before the Secretar5r on 1O.O2.2O23, along with their counsel and on examination and verification of their particulars from their Aadhar Cards, they were tallied. Thus the identihcation of both the parties has been established.

¶49

In view the said report of the Secretary, Telangana State High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and also in view of the compromise entered between the petitioner and respondent No.2, I.A.Nos. I^and 2 of 2022 are allowed.

¶50

¶51

Accordingly, this Criminal Revisicn Case is disposed of in terms of compromise. Consequently, the Judgment dated 29.10.2OO9 passed in CRL.A.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 31.I2.2OO7 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal, in C.C.No.238 of 2006, for the offence under

¶52

Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby set aside.

¶53

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this

¶54

matter, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶55

Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional^{District and Sessions Judge,} Nalgonda

¶60

¶61

The Judicial Magistrate of^{First Class, at Nakrekal.}

¶62

The Station House^{Officer, Kethepally Police Station, Nalgonda District'}

¶63

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶64

One CC to SRl.^M. SATEESH,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶65

One CC to SRI NOMULA SRINIVAS,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

Two CD Copies

¶67

kam

¶68

(Along with a copy of Memo of Compromise)

¶69

NJB

¶70

¶71

HIGH COURT DT.DNR,J DATED:1510212023

¶72

ORDER l,A. Nos.l ' $qaJd8 z aP^2a2 CRLRC. No.1819 of 2009

¶73

2 0 APn 2023
11.a.

¶74

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶75

[ro+'4 *'#

¶76

¶77

ivt t, i\l⁽ Ui Nt)l^r1t (jlt._ ^ t """t \l' }l15( PE l l I l()\ r; \r)r. rt \r.{ ,,, i . IIIr ti:( , r { , .r r.,', i,,,ia'f,' :]nl^{1,t11. I. 1} , , ,, r.r I \N{i/\N1\ ,^ , ,,",.,,1,1'ril',),,,

¶78

. . 1t'l]^{'l '' w/nl'111'll'1 ;r1.'ar':rlrr} . \ '-., .,t,,IJ ]tr ){.xt. It/,) li(.Cllla!afJ r \ illatc I.citrcl):rIl]. Mandal. N;rlgond,,ti,,,r,.i'',,,"""

¶79

...Pctitioncry' I)clackr contpiainant

¶80

\ lt(i

¶81

i t,Lrir'l:rgoni Nagara ju S/o Sathaiah .,. .,;rl,trut 1..rcirrs. | |{.(: .\Ill() I )tt\ Cl ,. ,.. r ir \l.lt.lilll villar.. ol (r.tlrt,pulr \ l.rrrrlul ',;l tLcr ril tirstr icl

¶82

.,^{Iir, .rtlte rrll,el;trrgllra} 'iL 1t.t)<sup>l</sup> l)uhlic l)loscr.rrtrrr

¶83

ttr, n r ,)trrl r,l lt,langalr"r. ar llytlcrahld.

¶84

l(cs;pondcn/ Accu sctl_

¶85

. .Itespondcnt

¶86

tl is subrnittcri that thc pclitioncr.zCornplainant and thc i.1,.:sporrdcnt/l)ctitioncr /A r:cuscrj havc ar:ricably scttled thc dispute at the irucr.rclrtion ol.cldcrs an<J wcll wisi.rcrs, arid rclativcs and the maltcr has bcen i',1)Itrirr,ised lrctwccn lh,..nr. llo n ,.. rt,^ r...,L Ic cc thc both partics cantc to cornpromisc in rrli- irl)(r,,( carsc Lrnclcr scclior -506(ii). 50()- 4l7ll,C anil acquit thc petiliorrcr

,:}

I I I I I l

"\ccLlsed lior)r tlrL: srricl 0/lcarrcr_,s nr(l sct li si,l,.] tlre (orrr j.lr.)lt il, rl,rl.\ \o 0l ol l()i)ll dare(f 29_10_2009 on thc tiie ot.lhr-. ('oLrrl ol lhc .lurj.Llc. Izrniil_L (_aiun clltl .\tirll. I)istr_ict and Scssiorrs .lurlqe. Nalgond a as conlirnred iir (.(. \o. l.lg o1.200(r orr tlre iile ol.thc Corrrt ol.the Jridicial Ma.gi stratc ol ljir.st (lass Na(r.c/ial datc(i -l l Il 1007 and thc par[ics havc no dairns u U or .;ghts agairrst each othcr in the

¶91

t, P.AaL{

¶92

Petrtioncl/ contplairan, ls^{w.'..)'"2-"'.;} t.rll r! Ii(spondenr, I,e(itioner/.lcpLrscd .1."4--'"""1 ,.ourrset lirr pit ione.z L r,,t rl)lJinnIlt CoLrrrsc/ lor , l' i -i,.1 -, . "Lr

¶93

t esp, inrJcr rrl peliri, rlcr. ,A((USrd

¶94

,/'\ i aw." * )-) i.^- <i.--/ ':i-q

Gundagoni Nagaraju v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundagoni Nagaraju v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Pulluri Thanmai , Santhoshi Vs Pulluri Sudheer Kumar and 5 Others

Gundagoni Yellamma Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Smt. Rishi Kapoor, Secunderabad. Vs Amit Kapoor, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, and Anr.

V. Suryanarayana Prabhakar Gupta, Hyderbad. Vs Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, and Anr.

R. Sandeep Reddy, Balanagar, R.R.Dist. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

B.Narasimha, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.