Allowed

Gudem Vikram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Feb 2024CRLP/1466/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal petitions filed by the accused. Upon recording a report from the High Court Legal Services Committee confirming that the parties had compromised and settled the dispute amicably, the Court exercised its jurisdiction to compound the offences and quash the criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The High Court Legal Services Committee was directed to submit a report; with a confirmed report of compromise, the criminal proceedings in FIR No. 865 of 2023 were quashed and the offences were compo

Gudem Vikram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

.;.-'

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAYTHE FOURTEENTH DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K.^SUJANA

¶6

l.A. Nos.2 and3of 2024

¶7

ln/and

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1466^{OF 2024}

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1

¶10

oF 2024

¶11

Between:

¶12

Gudem Vikram Reddy, S/o Gudam^{Mahipal Reddy,Age} 94^{years, Occ} Business, Fl,/o. H.No. 6-3, Ram Mandir^{Road,Near Municipaloffice, Patancheru} Municipality, Patancheru, Medak,^{Telangana. - 502319.}

¶13

.PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Through^{its Public Prosecutor, TheHighCourt of} Judicature at Hyderabad

¶16

Metalkunta Praveen Kumar, S/o^{Dasharath, Age.34 years, Occ. Labourer,} R/o.5-35, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy,^{Telangana. - 502319.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO^COMPLAINANT

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition,the High court may} be pleased to^quash the^{F.l.R. No. 865 ot 2023 on the file of Police station,} Patancheru against the^petitioner herein^{as compounded.}

¶19

l.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2024

¶20

Between:

¶21

Metalkunta Praveen Kumar, S/o Dasharath,^{Age. 34 years, Occ. Labourer,Rl/o} 5-35, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy,^Telangana. -^5023'19

¶22

...PETITIONER

¶23

AND

¶24

The State of Telangana, Through^{its Public Prosecutor, TheHighCourt of} Judicature at Hyderabad

¶25

2 9.Y^9,9T- Viklg. Tg99y, ^S/o G_udam Mahipat Reddy, Ase. 34 years, Occ Eusrness, R/o. H.No. 9-9, Rg, Mandir Road,^-lrteai Muniiipal^'office Patancheru Municipality, patancheru, Medak, Telangana. _ 502319.'

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

l.A. NO:2 F 2024

¶28

Petition under section 320(6) of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Petition, the High court may be pieaied-to permit to compound the offence in view of the compromise between the parties and therefore quash the, proceedings in vide F.t.R. No. 865 of 2023 dt. 3o11112023 against tne petitionei.

¶29

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024

¶30

Petition under section 320(2) Ryw 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition accompanying with compromisJ affidavit, ihe l-ligjt _court^{may be pleased to compound tire ore-nceand quash} tne^proceeJing. in FIR No. 865 of 2023 on the fite of patancheru, porice station,;g;;.t ii," Petitioners / Accused.

¶31

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. NAVEEN KUMAR' Advocate for the petitioner and the Assistant pubric prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri M. HANISH KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶32

The Gourt made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶33

\ I

¶34

THE HON'BLE SMT.^{JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶35

I.A.Nos.2 and³ of^2O24 ln and CRIMINAL PETITI^{ONNo.1466 of2O24}

¶36

COMMON ORDER:

¶37

It is submitted by^{tearned counsel appearing for the} petitioner as well as^{the respondentNo'2, that duringpendency} of the^{present Crimina,l Petition,t1.e partieshave compromised} the matter and^{accordingly, l.A.Nos'2 and 3 of 2024 have beert} filed to record^{the compromise between them and to compound} the offences.

¶38

Vide order dated^{08.02.2024,this Court directed the} parties along^{with their respective counselto appear before the} Secretary, High^{CourtLegal ServicesCommittee,High Court for} the State of^{Telangana, Hyderabad,for identihcationandto} submit a report.

¶39

I I

¶40

Pursualt to the^{abovesaid direction issued by this Court'} the parties have^{appeared and the Secretary,High Court kgal} Services Committee,^{has identiiredthe parties and submitteda} report, dated 12.02.2024^{and the same is placed on record'}

¶41

In view of the^{above,I.A.Nos.2and 3 of 2024 are allowed'} Consequently,^{thisCriminal Petition isa'llowed andthe} proceedings in Crime^{No.865of2023 of PatancheruPolice} Station against^{the petitioner/accusedare herebyquashed}

¶42

2 SKS, J Crl.P-No.Ia66 of 2024

¶43

¶44

subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.S,OoO/(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c.No.521g8926279, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch (2OOZO), IFSC Code:SBINOO2OO7O, MICR No.500OO4O57) and Rs.S,OOO/_ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, within a period of two (02) weeks from today arrd file proof of the same before the Registry.

¶45

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶46

closed.

¶47

SdAG. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial First Class magistrate, (prohibitions & Excise) at Sangareddy. 2. The Station House Officer, Patanchdru Police Station, Sangareddi. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of ielangdna at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶52

One CC to SRl. N. NAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl

¶53

One CC to Sri M. HANTSH KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI^'

¶54

Two CD Copies

¶55

DLAA^/"'

¶56

(ALONG W|TH A COpy OF JOTNT MEMO OF COMPROMTSE)

¶57

Note: Total Amount of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Ten thousand only ) has been paid by sri N. NAVEEN KUMAR, counsel for the petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble court vide order dated 14.02.2024 as Rs. 5,ooo/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the "Director, Sainik Welfare Hyderabad, ( Savings tuc. No. S2118g262tg, State Bank of lndia, Shantinagar Branch (20070) ,|FSC Code : SBIN0O2OOO7O, MICR No. 500004057) and to the Telangana High court Advocates Association, Hyderabad and filed Memo as proof of compliance USR No. 16037 ot 2024 dated 1s.o2.2024.

HIGH COURT

SKS, J

DATED: 1410212024

f.A. Nos.2 and3ol 2024 ln/and

¶62

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1466 OF 2024

¶63

'\ Hf': S 14 /4:
o
q
oc)t
16 r[! 20a
!,' I
t../,
*
?t-'r'.,. r- o' '- , ''
---:.'-:-- -

¶64

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND l.A. Nos. 2 AND 3 OF 2024

¶65

n
\b

¶66

¶67

NriMonqNoulr^oli QUASH^PETrrroN (UNDER SECTION^{482 OF CR.P.C)}

¶68

OF.IUDICATURE^{FORTI{E STATEOF} IN TIIE HON:BLE^{HIGH COURT} TtrLANGAN \t1_1.0 ^^{g }+""sqP7} CRL'P'^No' I )[ L^brzozq AGAINST

¶69

F.I.R. No.^865OF2023

¶70

¶71

BETWEEN: Gudem^VikamRFddY S/o Gudam^{Mahiflal ReddY.} Age : 34 Years,^{Oic: Business} W-o: H.No. 6-3, Rhm^MandirRoad' Nearlr4unicipal^{dffice, Patancberu} I Telangana. Municipaliry, -^{502819.Parirncheru.Medak'} I i . . Petitroper/Accused AND I The Stdte^{of.Telangana,} Tkouetr^{its Public Prosecutor.} irr. iTgn^{coutt orJudicature at Hyderabad} 2. Meteilkunta lPraveen^Kumar S/o Dasharath Age: 34 Yeirs.^{Occ: Labourer,} RJo: 5-35,^Patancheru, Sanga ReddY,^{Telangana - 5023 t9} .. Respondents/^{De-FactoComPam} JOINT MEMO

¶72

1 It is submitted^{that the presentcriminal petition is filed underSection482 rlw3} of Cr,P.C.^{seeking to compoundthe criminal proceedings instituted vide F'I;R' N}

,.} i*

q..il"4 d)1

<br>$' "-"^

865 of 2023 dt. 3}.ll.ZOZ3 on the file of police Station, parancheru, against the Petitioner herein

¶77

2 The above proceedings arose in view ofthe complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2/ Defacto Complainant before thr No. 865 or 2023 dt. 30. r r.2023 JH:::fl;;:, :;:H ; .:; (s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes prevention of Atrocities Act, I9g9 against the^petitioner herein.

¶78

¶79

It is further submitted that, while the above FIR is pending investigation on the file of the Patanchenr, police Station, both the parties in order to maintain peace and harmony amongst themselves had decided to amicably settle the disputes by entering into compromise

¶80

¶81

That in furtherance of maintaining peace and harmony amongst the parties and with an intention to amicably settle the disputes amongst the parties, the,petitioner horein has approached this Hon,ble Corrt seeking compounding and quashing of the criminal proceedinl "g:l:" the petitioner herein vide FIR No. F.I.R. No. 8f5of 2023 on the file ofpatancheru, police Station.

¶82

5 That upon the intervention ofthe elders, the parties herein i.e., Tlle petitioner and Respondent No.2/De-Facto Complainant have murually agreed ,to compromise among themselves. In view comprainant does not intend ." ::jX;'_:":::::;"1;."; lodged by him against the petitioner.

¶83

6 It is submitted that, in light ofthe same, the Respondent No.2 is voluntarily, without any kind ofpressure or coercion is willing to withdraw u[ th" r .gut on, the Petitioner and further does not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings^guirr.t

¶84

icF #$$ ,..,i .. i ffir

¶85

(..il'{"+aJ\4

¶86

-qt .d \ {\ ffi

¶87

lill^j lr

ffi if',; .i Bf.I I

ffi

against thB petitioner herein. Therefore, on this ground alone the crim.inal

¶94

proceedings against the petitiorrer herein are liable to be quashed. That the Parties having heavily counted on the compromise inter se and are thus praying this Hon'ble Coun seeking quashing ofthe Criminal prosecution pending in its entirety against the petitioner Iterein.

¶95

¶96

It il submitted that the petitioner hereiniAccused No.2 and th6 ReJpondent No.2/ I Defacto Complainant have agreed among themselves b comprofse and resolve alllthe disputes amicably and as such are approaching tt,is ugf,,Ure icorit ti coJnpound the criminal proceedings initiated by the Respondeni No.2/ Defacto--'* I Complainant against the petitioner herein.

¶97

¶98

9 It'is submifted that in view of thr e c omnr^-;"a L-F,.^^_ , ,: omprggli.sg between the partids, the pbtirioner : aid the Respondent No.2/Defack | Complainant are approaching this Hoo,Ut,j cou.tJ rnvoktng ofils extraordinary inlerentjurisdiction under section +Ai Cr.R.C. seeking for quashing of criminal procer .. I , :dings in F.t.R. No. 865 of 2Of3 on theifite of Patancheru, police Station againsr the petitioner herein, othefse tle tg[itioner would be put into ineparable loss. I ,^,l

¶99

It is.further submitted that the parties with theirmutual consent any' free will without any pressure, force, coercion or undue influence from any side, have acre4dto plt qure hrs to all their disputes firl.ly and to live peacefully I l. It is respectfully submitted that , the Petitioner and the Rqspon Cent No qto Complairiant both herein agreed to settle the disputes among the parties jnler and shall not raise any further disputes in fi.rtherance of the proceedings in F.l No. 865 of 2023 on the file of patanchenr, police Station and agreed to withidra.i any allegatiops made against each other unconditionally and that the ent

e-ft^vd lv'

\1 %.'s,i1u'"ryo)

INT nces may ation'

luer,^Fuo

r$loNE

)ourt^of

proceedings between the parties stands finally resolved and that there is no ill will or complaint against each other in any marner

¶108

It is therefore prayed that this Hon,ble Court may be pleased to call for.the records in.F I'R No g65 0f2023 0n the file ofpatancheru, police Station againsi the petiiioner herein and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as tt is ffon,Ute Cor" ,n* *._ ;;;; proper in the circumstances oi the case

¶109

I Petitioirer I "a+\1 a['"]G'Ide1.vi kram Reddy COUNSEL T'OR P ITI NER ,-ll, '

¶110

Defacto.Complainant y'QaAu€t*l Metalkunti praveen Kumar

¶111

CO EL FOR^JRESPONDENT

¶112

f I

¶113

i c,.

Gudem Vikram Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudem Vikram Reddy 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

Mahadeva Kameswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ahmeds Construction Equipments, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ahmeds Construction Equipments Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Ahamed Vs The State of Telangana

Guntupalli Padmaja Vs The State of Telangana

Kandula Karunakar Vs The State of Telangana