Allowed

Murakar Pentaji s/o Balaji, v. The State of A.P. through P.S. Nagireddypet

Telangana HC3 Oct 2023CRLRC/805/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed impleadment of the accused's divorced wife as a respondent. A compromise mutually agreed upon by parties regarding Section 498-A IPC was recorded. Despite the section being non-compoundable, the proceedings were quashed and the accused was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.1 allowed (impleadment); I.A. No.2 allowed (recording of compromise); Criminal Revision Case No. 805 of 2012 allowed causing acquittal of the revision petitioner.

Murakar Pentaji s/o Balaji, Vs The State of A.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner was directed to be^{released on bail by the order of the} High Court dated 08.06.2012 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.^{1256 of 2012inCrl.R.C No. 805 of} 2012

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE THIRD^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V, VENUGOPAL}

¶6

l.A.Nos. 1. 20F 2023 IN/AND

¶7

CRIMINAL REVtstoN cAsE^{NO : 805 oF 2012}

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section^{397Rl/w Section401 of Cr.P.C, of} 1973 against the Judgment dated 10.05.2012^{passed in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of} 2011 oi the file of the Court of the^{lX Additional SessionsJudge at Kamareddy} preferred against the Judgment dated 30.11.2011^{passed in C.C.No. 38 of 2008 on} the file of the Judicial Magistrate of^{First Classat Yellareddy.} Between:

¶9

Murakar Pentaji, S/o. Balaji, Age: 33^years, Occ:^{Businessand Butcher, r/o} Sirgupur village of Kalher Mandal, Dlstrict^Medak.

¶10

..Revision Petitioner/A-1

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of A.P., through P.S. Nagireddypet,^rep. by^{its Public Prosecutor,} High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Murakar Pushpa, D/o. Ramchander^(Divorced W/o. Murakar^{Pentaji), Age: 39} years, Hindu, Occ: Household, Rl/o. Gopalpet mandal, Nagireddypet Mandal, Nagireddypet District, Kamareddy^(Erstwhile District, Nizamabad)

¶14

As per Court Order dated 03.10.2023 vide l.A.No. 1 of 2023 in Crl.RC.No.⁸⁰⁵ of 2012 Respondent No.2 is impleaded.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

AN : 1 OF 2013 CRLRCMP. NO:497

¶17

Petition under Sections 482 & 32O 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 accord permission to the parties to record the Compromise, and acquit the Revision Petitioner by allowing the Crl.RC.No.805 ot 2012.

¶18

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Rule^'16-4 of Writ Rules, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to p-.rmit the Petitioner to implead the proposed respondent as respondent No. 2 in Crl.R.C.No. 805 of 2012 as well as in l.As.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 21t23

¶22

Petition under Sections 482 & 320 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleas,:d to accord permission to the parties ( Revision Petitioner and Respondent Nc.2 ) to record the compromise, and acquit the revision petitioner by allowing the Crl. R.C. No. 805 oI 2012.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Damodar Rao

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶25

Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri D.V.N. Acharya

¶26

The Court ma(le the following: OROER

¶27

\ t

¶28

¶29

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶30

I.A.Nos.1 ,2 of2o23 io, land CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 8O5 OF 2Ol2

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 10.05.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2O11 passed by the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge at Kamareddy, affirming the judgment dated 30.11.2O11 in C.C. No.38 of 2008 on the frle of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Yellareddy.

¶33

I.A. No.1 of 2023 is allowed permitting the petitioner, who is a divorced wife of revision petitioner herein to be impleaded as respondent No.2 in Crl. R.C. No.805 of 2012.

¶34

I.A.No.2 of 2023 is filed along with Joint Memorandum of Compromise with a prayer to accord permission to the parties to record compromise and acquit the revision petitioner. Accordingly, allowed the Interlocutory Application.

¶35

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/ State takes no objection for the same.

t i ! I I

Revision petitioner and the de facto complainant are present before this Court. They are identified by their respective counsel. They have admitted the terms of compromise and signed the terms of compromise before the Court. Compromise is recorded. The terms of compromise shail form part of record.

¶41

Thoup h the offence under Section 498-4 of IPC is noncompoundable, since the parties have arrived at compromise in between the parties, the proceedings against the revision petitioner have been q:ashed.

¶42

Accorrlingly, the^judgment dated 10.O5.2012 passed by the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge at Kamareddy in Criminal Appeal No. 1)5 of 201 1 confirming the^judgment dated 3O. 1 l.2O 1 1 in C.C. No. 38 of 2OO8 on the hle of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Yellareddy, is hereby set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted for the offen:e under Section 498-A IPC.

¶43

Miscr:llaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal

¶44

revision carie, stands closed.

¶45

.--"--?---.:--..-

¶46

SD/-T.^SRINIVAS DEPU^TY EGISTRAR

¶47

//TRUE^COPY//

¶48

SECTION^OFFICER

¶49

To, 1 The lX /rdditional^{SessionsJudge' at Kamareddy (with records)} 2 . The Judicial^Magistrate "f^{Fi;"tU;;t i"tt"r."iov' Nizamabad District' (with} records'

¶50

J . T]r"e" S]lrrerintendent,^{DistrictJail' Nizamabad'} 4. The Station^{House off icer,itr'gii"Jovpa} iftn^Police Court^{Station' for the State of Telansana Kamareddy'at} 5. Two C()s^{to the Public il;;;t*'} Hvderal>ad.^(OUT) ';'--^-;, r^ q.r rramodar Rao. Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

¶52

One CC to Sri^{D.V.N. Acharya,Advocate} [OPUC] ii. 8. Two CD CoPies \ njb MY ter-oNc^{wIrH A coPYoF JoINT MEMo oF coMPRoMISE)} $d

{

\ {

0 I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0311012023

ORDER

l.A.Nos. 1 ,2 of 2023 ln/and CRLRC.ltlo.805 ot 2012

¶60

4:
J
21 Fli :lli'
I O
*
-l: a.
i)._:.'t i-.,rf '|l; ./ ';. . .l
..]:

¶61

ALLOWIIiIG THE I.A'S & CRLRC

¶62

<br>a,<br>\5
k+o

¶63

MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE ( UNDER SECTION 32O and 482 OF Cr,p.C_)

¶64

IN THE HIGH COURI OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD.

¶65

l.A. NO oF 7073

¶66

¶67

Crl. R. C- NO. 805 OF 2012

¶68

BETWEEN:

¶69

Murakar Pentatji, S/o^Balaii,

¶70

Aged About^{44 years, Occ: Business} and Butcher,

¶71

R/o 5irgupur^{Villageof KalherMandal,}

¶72

District Sanga^{Reddy(ErstwhileDist.} Medak).

¶73

Petitioner/ Revision petitioner/ A-1

¶74

AND

¶75

The state of Telangana, through P.S. Nagireddypet, Rep by its^{Public Prosecutor,} High Court of^{Telangana,Hyderabad.}

¶76

Murarkar Pushpa . D/o Ramchander, ( Divorced Wife of Murakar Pentaji), Aged About:^{39 years,Hindu,} Occ: Hosehold, R/o Gopalpet^{Mandal, NagireddyPet,} Mandal Nagireddy^{pet,Dist. KammaReddy,} ( Erstwhile Dist. Nizamabad).

¶77

... Respondent / Respondent

¶78

Respon dent No.2/ De-facto Complainant

¶79

JOINT COMPROMISE M EMO

¶80

That as per the advice of the elders, the parties i.e. the revision petitioner and the respondent no.2 have compromised the n)atter which is in their best interest. The compromise is as follows:

¶81

(l
I ?"Lk

¶82

ft,#

¶83

That the revision petitioner has been asked by the elders to pay Rs. 90,O00/(Rupees Nirrety Thousand only), for which the Respondent No,2 herein has agreed

¶84

That this an)ount of Rs. 90,000/- is paid by the Revision Petitioner and received by Respondent No.2.

¶85

That in view of this compromise, the Crl.R.C No. 805 of 2012 before the Hon'ble High Court may be allowed, By acquitting the revision petitioner. That the revision petitioner ra,as convicted for offence u/s 498-4, IPC and sentenced to simpte imprisonme 1t for two years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default , to undergo further S.l. of 3 mor ths and the remand period was ordered to be set off by the ludgment of the court of J.F.M.C., Yellareddy Dated 30-11-2011 prefered appeal which was disposed off by the Court of lX Addl. Sessions Judge at Kammareddy, Dist. Nizamabad :onfirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court; the judgment of the appellate Court dated 1O-05-20L2 in Crl. Appeal No. 95/2011. As against the appellate Court judgrnent a criminal revision case is filed before the Hon'ble Higr Court in which now the parties i.e., revision petitioner and the respondent I'1o.2 have compromised.

¶86

Hence, the com trromise may be recorded, the revision petitioner may be acquitted of the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced, by allowing the criminal revision case no. 805/2012.

¶87

I <.

Murakar Pentaji s/o Balaji, v. The State of A.P. through P.S. Nagireddypet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murakar Pentaji s/o Balaji, v. The State of A.P. through P.S. Nagireddypet

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

Pottu Thirupathi , Thirupathi Reddy Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and 17 Others

Holista Transzworld Ltd., Chennai and Anr. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd

Proddaturi Ravinder, R.R.Dist. Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, R.R.Dist. and 2 Othrs

Challa Veman Reddy Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Subash Kumar Sharma Vs The State Of Telangana

V.Madan, S/o.Late v.Jaihind Rao Vs The State of Telangana.