Allowed

Aloysius Deepak v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Nov 2024CRLP/12538/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a C.C.No.65 of 2016 case under Section 498-A IPC sought to quash proceedings after reaching a compromise with the complainant. After the parties were identified by the High Court Legal Services Committee, the Court recorded the compromise and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against accused Nos.1-3 in C.C.No.65 of 2016 quashed; I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 allowed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Aloysius Deepak Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132571

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{JUWADI SRIDEVI} l.A. NO. 2 & 30F 2024 IN/AND

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^'12538 OF²⁰²⁴

¶7

Between:

¶8

Aloysius Deepak, S/o.^{ArulDominieAged41 years, Occ-Pvt. Employee,.Rl/o'} ff . fto 1- 5-950, Plot. No. 33,^{FatherBalaiah Nhgar, Old Alwal, Secunderabad'}

¶9

Arul Dominie, S/o. late^{Arul Dass Dominie,Aged 73 years,OccRetd'} Employee R/o Plot. No. 33,^{H. No. 1-5-950/D, Father Balaiah Nagar,old} Alwal.

¶10

Smt. Saramma Dominie,^{Wo. Arul DominieAged 67 years, Occ. Housewife} R/o Plot. No. 33, H. No. 1-5-950/D,^{Father Balaiah Nagar,Old Alwal.}

¶11

...Petitioners/Accused^{No. 1'2 & 3}

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana,^{Throughits Public Prosecutor High Courtof} Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

Smt. Kavitha John, D/o. John^{Kufti, Aged37 years, Occ' Housewife,R/o H'} No. A 103, Kalpataru Harmony,^{Wakad,Pune,Maharashtra- 411057'}

¶15

...Respondents/ Defacto^Complainant

¶16

Petition under section 528 of^{BNSS praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the High courtmaybe} pleased to quash the^proceedings in c.c.^{No. 65 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble} k Metropolitan Magistrate,^{MedchalMalkajgiri District,at Athivelli.}

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2024

¶18

Smt. Kavitha John, D/o.^{John Kutti, Aged 37 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o H'} No. A 103, Kalpataru Harmony,^{Wakad,Pune,Maharashtra-411057'}

¶19

.. Petitioner/ Defacto Complainant

¶20

And

¶21

1 Alovsius Deepak, S/o.^{Arul DominieAged41 years, Occ. Pvt' Employee, R/o} H.^'No 1- S-SSO,^ptot. No.^{33, FatherBalaiah Nagar, Old Alwal,} Secunderabad.

¶22

Arul Dominie, S/o. Iate Arul Dass Dominie, Aged 73 years, Occ. Retd, Employee R/o Plot No. 33, H. No. 1-5-950/D, Father B'ataiah Nagar, Old Alwal.

¶23

3 S1t._SarqJnma Dominie, Wo. Arul Dominie Aged 67 years, Occ. Housewife R/o Plot. 1',1o. .33, H. No. 1-5-950/D, Father Balaiah Nag6r, Otd Alwal.

¶24

.. Respondents/ Accusr:d No. 1 , 2 &

¶25

And

¶26

The State of I'elangana, Through its public prosecutor High Cou( of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶27

Petition uncler Section 359 (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 accord permission to compromise thr3 case in C.C. No. 65 of 2016 on the file of the Honorable X Metropolitan [rlagistrate, firedchal trrlalkajgiri District, at l\thivelli in the interest of justice.

¶28

l.A. NO: 3 OF 20L4

¶29

Smt.-Ka_vittu John, D/o. John Kutti, Aged 37 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H No. A 103, Kalpataru Harmony, Wakad, pun6, Maharashtra- 4l1OS7.

¶30

Petitioner/ Defackr Complainant

¶31

And

¶32

'1. Aloysius Deepak, S/o. Arul Dominie Aged 41 Vears, Occ. pvt. llRloyee,!/o^{H. No 1- 5-950, ptotlNo.3i, FatherB,ataiah} Nagar, Old,Alwal, Secunderabad.

¶33

Arul Dominie, S/o. late Ary] Qq+ Dominie, Aged 73 years, Occ. Retd. llRloyee^{R/o ptot. No. 33, H. No. 1-5-950/5,Fattrdrealaiih} Na;;;: Old r\lwal.

¶34

Smt. Saramma Dominie,- -Wo. Arul Dominie Aged €i7 years, Occ. Housewife R/o PIot. No.33, H. No.^.1-S-950/D, flther eal'aiah irt"g;;; Old r\lwal.

¶35

. Respondents/ Accused No. I, 2 &

¶36

And

¶37

The State of Telangana, Through its public prosecutor High Court of I elangana, Hyderabad.

¶38

¶39

Petition under Section 359⁽²⁾ of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Courtmay be} pleased to record the compromise and^quash the^{proceedingsin C.C'No.65of} )OtO on the file of the Honorable^{X Metropolitan Magistrate, MedchalMalkajgiri} District, at Athivelli in the interest^{of justice.}

¶40

This Petition coming on for hearing,^{upon perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearingthe arguments of M/s.VISHAL} KUMAR JAIN, Advocate for the Petitioner^and of^{the Addl. Public Prosecutor, for} the state of Telangana on behalf of the^{RespondentNo.1 .}

¶41

The Court made the following: ORDER:-

¶42

¶43

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JWVADI SRIDIiVI

¶44

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024

¶45

in/and CRIMINAL PETITION No.l2 538 of 2024

¶46

COMMON ORDER:

¶47

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 5ll8 of the Bharatiyr Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 by the petitioners/ accused Nos.l to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.65 of 2016 on the file of X Metropolitan Mrrgistrate, Medchal Nlalkajgiri District, registered for the offences punishable trnder Section 498-A of IPC.

¶48

It is submitted by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2, that during pendency' of the present Criminal Petition, the partres have compromised the matter and accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 rLnd 3 of 2024 have been filed to record the compromise between them and to compound the offences.

¶49

Vide order dated 22.10.2024, this Court dire<;ted the parties along rvith their respective counsel to appear before the Secretary. High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court

for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, for identification and to

¶54

submit a repoft.

¶55

Pursuant to the above said direction issued by this Court, the parties have appeared and the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, has identified the parties and submitted a

¶56

report, dated 28.10.2024 and the same is placed on record.

¶57

In view of the above, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 are

¶58

allor,ved. Consequently, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 in C.C.No.65 of 2016 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶59

Medchal Malkajgiri District, hereby quashed.

¶60

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶61

closed.

¶62

Sd/- K.^AMMAJI ASSISTANT IEGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// secffiorrrcen

¶63

To,

¶64

i,,'"i#i{HtJnlHf,,r$sl,1ail"df".+#i?i:.j.qH'"'"'ii::;:::" Hvderabad [OUTl. 4. Two^{CD CoPies.}

VGS/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:19 l'1il2024

ORDER:-

l.A. NO. 2 & 30F 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETIIIION NO: 12538 OF 2o24

¶72

.( lIE /ti +
(
4
L
o 1 I 0t[ 20?{ L-
.(4
\ h
-L\l-i
Q:

¶73

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶74

nI ,r\4
V+

Aloysius Deepak v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aloysius Deepak 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

Dandem Uday Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Farhana Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Aruva Sai Karthik Vs The State of Telangana

Baswaraju Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

Nampally Kumara Swamy, Vs The State of Telangana

D. Bhanu Chander Vs The State of Telangana