Allowed

Mikkilineni Bhuloka Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Sept 2024CRLP/5181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition and two interlocutory applications seeking quashing of proceedings under the SC/ST Act. The court accepted that the matter had been settled between parties via compromise and directed payment of sums to authorities before quashing the charges against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in SC/ST case quashed upon payment of Rs. 5,000 to Director, Sainik Welfare and Rs. 5,000 to Telangana High Court Advocates Association within two weeks.

Mikkilineni Bhuloka Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTET\iIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶7

t.A. NOS.^'t AND 2 0F 2024

¶8

IN / AND

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5181 OF 2022

¶10

Between:

¶11

tVlikkilineni Bhuloka Rao, S/o. Pedda Rangaiah, Age 63 years, Occ Agriculture Rl/o. Sarvaram village of Mothey Mandal, Presently residing at H.No. 9-73/1, Lalithanagar, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad

¶12

Mikkilineni Vinay, S/o. Bhuloka Rao, Age 28^years, Occ Pvt. Employ Fl/o. Sarvaramvillage of Mothey Mandal, Presently residing at H.No. 9-7311, Lalithanagar, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad

¶13

Vemulapalli Venkateswar Rao, S/o. Papa Rao, Age 55^years, Occ Agriculture Fl/o. Sarvaram village of Mothey Mandal, Presently residing at Bibigudem Village of Chiwemla Mandal

¶14

Petitioner No. 3 Name is amended as per Court Order dated 19-09-2024 vide l.A. No. 4 of 2024 in Crl.P. No. 5181 o'f 2022

¶15

...Petitioners / Accused No.^'l to 3

¶16

AND

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶18

Bhukya Kandya Naik, S/o. Bheela, Age 52^years, Occ Agriculture,^R!/o. Raikunta thana, H/o Urlugonda (V), Mothey lVandal

¶19

...Respondent

¶20

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 proceedings in S.C No. 264 of 2O19 pending on the file of Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge Court for SC/ST Trial Cases at Nalgonda, against the Petitioners / Accused No. 1 to 3 alone.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in S.C. No. 264 of 2019 pending on the file of Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge Court for SC/ST Trial Cases at Nalgonda, against the Petitioners / Accused No. 1 to 3,^pending disposal of the Main Quash Petition.

¶23

l.A. NO:^'l OF 2024

¶24

Between:

¶25

Bhukya Kandya Naik, S/o. Bheela, Age 52 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. Raikunta thana, H/o Urlugonda (V), Mothey Mandal

¶26

...Petitioner / 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant in l.A. No. 1&2oI 2024

¶27

¶28

Mikkilineni Bhuloka Rao, S/o. Pedda Rangaiah, Age 63 years, Occ Agriculture Fl/o. Sarvaram village of Mothey Mandal, Presently residing at H.No. 9-7311, Lalithanagar, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad

¶29

Mikkilineni Vinay, S/o. Bhuloka Rao, Age 28 years, Occ Pvt. Employ R:/o. Sarvaramvillage of Mothey Mandal, Presently residing at H.No. 9-7311, Lalithanagar, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad

¶30

Vemulapalli Venkateswar Rao, S/o. Papa Rao, Age 55 years, Occ Agriculture Rl/o. Sarvaram village of Mothey Mandal, Presently residing at Bibigudem Village of Chiwemla Mandal

¶31

Petitioner No. 3 Name is amended as per Court Order dated 19-09-2024 vide l.A. No.4 of 2024 in Crl.P. No.51Bl of 2022

¶32

...Respondents / Petitioners / Accused in l.A. No. 1 & 2 ol 2024

¶33

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶34

...Respondent / Respondent in l.A. No. 1 & 2 ot 2024

¶35

Petition under Section 320 (6) rlw 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^permit the Petitioner / R-2 to compound the offences against the Petitioner/Accused and quash the S.C. No. 264 OF 2019 pending on the file of the Special Sessions Judge Court for SC/ST Trial Cases at Nalgonda for the offences Section 447,323 r/w. 34 lPC, Sec. 3(1)(g) & 3(2) (va) of SC / ST's^(POA) Amendment Act- 2015ⁱⁿ the interest of^justice.

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 320 (z) rlw 4g2 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 record the compromise and quash the charge sheet 264 oI 2019 pending on the file of learned special sessions Judge court for sc/ sr rrial cases at Nalgonda for the offences section 442, 323 r/w. 34 lpc, sec. 3(1xg) 3(2xva) of sc/ sls (poA) Amendment Act 2015 against the petitioner / Accused in the interest of justice.

¶40

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri G Durga charan, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri syeda Asima Unnisa, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶41

The Court made the following Common Order :

¶42

i 0

¶43

¶44

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶45

I.A.Nos.1 and.2 of 2O24 1n and

¶46

CRIMINAL PETITION No.S181 of 2o22

¶47

COMMON ORDER:

¶48

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2, that during pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 hrave been filed to record the compromise between them and to compound the offences.

¶49

Vide order dated O2.O9 .2O24, this Court directed the parties along with 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 submit a report.

¶50

Pursuant to the above said direction issued by this Court, the parties have appeared and the Secretary, High Court kgal Services Committee, has identified the parties and submitted a report, dated O5.O9.2024, wherein petitioner No.3 produced his identity card i.e., Adhar Card holding name as Vemulapalli Venkateswara Rao and the same is placed on record.

¶51

In view of the above, I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2024 are allowed Consequently, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the

¶52

¶53

proceedings in S.C.No.264 of 2Ol9 on the Iile of the Special Sessions Judge Court for^SC/ST Trial^Cases at^Nalgonda, against the^petitioners are^{hereby quashed subjectto the} petitioners paying an amount of Rs.5,000/-^{(Rupees Five} Thousand Only) to the^{Director,Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad} (Savings A/c.No.52188926279, State Bank of^India, Shantinagar Branch^{(2OO7O, IPSC Code:SBINO02OO7O,MICR} No.500004O57) and Rs.5,0O0/-^{(RupeesFiveThousandOnly)to} the Telangana High Court^{AdvocatesAssociation,Hyderabad,} within a period of two^{(02) weeksfrom today andf-rle proof of the} same before the Registry.

¶54

Miscellaneous applications, if any^{pending, shall stand}

¶55

closed.

¶56

¶57

Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGJgTRAR V SECTION^OFFICER ,TRUE COPY//

¶58

To, 1 The Special Sessions^{Judge Court for SC/ST Trial Cases at Nalgonda} 2 +ii; Sirti; F6uiJokicerlruothev^{PS s!ryapet Distrtct} a iffiEc; to^{ih;puurib p,os""rtol Higl' colri for the state of relangana'} 4 3I'""61'?3 A?Eturg,^{cna,un,Advocate[oPU c ]} -. 5 ffi;E iI^{Sii 5vEJr"A.ima unlssa.Advoiate toPUCl} 6 Two CD CoPies

¶59

Along with^{a copy of JointMemo of Compromtse}

¶60

Note:TotalAmountofRs.10,000l(RupeesTenthousandonly)hasbeenpaidby Sri G Durga^{Charan, Counsel for the Petitioner as directedby the Hon'ble Court vide} Order^{dated 1g-Og-2024as Rs 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the} Director,sainikwelfare,Hyderabad,andRs.5,000/-(RupeesFivethousandonly) to the Telangana^{High Court AdvocatesAssociation' Hyderabad and filedMemo as} proof of compliance^{USRNo 102596 of 20.24 dated 23-10-2024'}

-f-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912024

COMMON ORDER

l.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2024

¶66

( trE.STA re
(
i [S Nt! ?02[ I

¶67

in / and

¶68

CRLP.No.S181 of 2022

¶69

ALLOWING THE CRLP AND

¶70

l.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2024

¶71

il-<br>

¶72

¶73

MEMORANDUM^{OF CRIMINALMISC' PETITION} (UNDER sEcTIoN^{32o (6) n/*:192.3f.Cr' P' C)} rN tUO TITCH^{COURT OF.TdOTCETURE AT HYDERABAD} FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} of 2023 I.A.'No'^O> IN of2O2LCrl.P.No.

¶74

Between: Bhukya^{KandYa Naik, S} /o.^Bheela, Aee; 50 Ycars,^Occ:Agri culture, R7o. Raikunta^{thana, II} /o^Urlugonda(v) MotheY^Mandal' ....Petitioner /^{2na resPondent} /^{Defacto ComPlainant}

¶75

AND

¶76

l.Mikkilineni^{Bhuloka Rao' S/o' Pedda Rangaiah'} Aoe' 63 vea-rs,^{Occ: Agriculture'} ii.. Srt"*am^{village of Mothey Mandal'} PresentlY^residingat: ;.il;a^{-'?a7 1, LJthanagar' Dilsuknagar'Hvderabad}

¶77

2.Mikkilineni^{Vinay, S/o' Bhuloka Rao'} io"r 28 vears,^{Occ:Pvt' EmPloYee'} ;ii; ffi;; village of^{MotheY Mandal'} PresentlY^residingat: ii.il;^{A -'? a} 1^{t., tixl..anagar'Dilsuknagar'Hvderabad} 3.Vemulapalli^{VenkannaBabu' S/o' Papa Rao'} : occ: Agricurture ;;;;'il;;;, di;. S"i"-am^{village of MothevMandal'} pi""entlv residing at: Agriculture' -BiLig"a"* Village of Chiwemla Mandal' .. ..Respondents/ Petitioners/Accused

¶78

The state^ofTelangana' Rep. bv^{its PublicProsecutor'} ii;;h A; of Judicature'^{at HYderabad'} "^{ResPondent/ResPondent}

'$ \

-JquI_n4E!4a

It is submitted that the petitioner/defacato complainant have amicably settled the dispute at the intervention of elders, friends and well wishers and the matter has been compromised between them. Hence the both parties carne to compromise and the parties of have no claims or rights against each other in the future.

¶83

¶84

¶85

.-) N7' Signatures of Accused

¶86

, $,-g/ i.fl

¶87

Signature of Complainalt

¶88

Counsel for the Accused.

¶89

( ,+ CoUIlSel for the Complainaat

Mikkilineni Bhuloka Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mikkilineni Bhuloka Rao 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

Management of South Glass Company Vs The State of Telangana

Kishore Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Thota Venu Vs The State of Telangana

Eranolla Lokeshwara Vs Sat Yalamanchili

Jolapally Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Osman Qureshi Vs The State of Telangana