Allowed

Smt. Marri Padma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Aug 2024CRLP/5792/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court for Telangana allowed the Criminal Petition and I.A. No.1 of 2024 seeking quashing of SC No.93 of 2021. The court recorded a joint compromise between the accused and the complainant and directed the petitioner to pay costs totaling Rs. 10,000 before quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C. No. 93 of 2021 quashed. Petitioner directed to pay Rs.10,000 in costs to Director, Sainik Welfare and Telangana High Court Advocates Association.

Smt. Marri Padma Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^338s1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY,^{THE FIFTH DAY OF AUgUS_T} rWO THOUSRND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶7

l.A'No'1 of²⁰²⁴

¶8

!n/and

¶9

CRIMINAL PETIr'io[Io:^{5792 0F 2021}

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt.MarriPadma,WifeofSrikanth,Aged.3Tyearsocc.ADEinTSSPDCL R/o H.No 14-62t1F,"$'J;"l'Uiil3tt;A^{M' d' Habsiguda' Hvderabad}

¶12

...Petitioner/Accused^No'1

¶13

AND

¶14

I The State^{of Telangana, Through through Public prosecutorHighCourt at} HYderabad

¶15

"'Respondent^No'1

¶16

2 off Smt icer Nakrekanti^{(N H M} ),^{R/o Shailaja, D/o Ramulu'.qged F lat N"'i"Oi:ft:;;' Vi"nli Apd'tmtnt' 37 years.occ Govt Nalgonda' MedicalNalsond a} District

¶17

..'Respondent^{No'2/De-factoComplainant}

¶18

Petition under^{Section482 of Cr'P C prqylnothat in the circumstances} 'S.C. stated in^{rhe Memorandr*'iiC-r-"-rnO" ot Crimihat peiition, the High Court may be} oleased to^{quashtne Cnar# Sf,*ii"} llo. 93 ot^{2O21 on the file of Special} '##.:rlg;*ir"'idrsr^{poA Act cases)at Nalsonda'}

¶19

l.A. NO: 1^{0F 2021}

¶20

Petition under^{Section482 of Cr'P'C prgyfno that in the circumstances} stated^{in the Memorandu.'"oiSr*J.of Criminal'Peiition,the High Court may be} oleased to^{grant stay ot} "ir^{i'ni"'-p'"ceedings'.including appearance of the} oetitioner^{in SC No Sf ot Zi)r'"o;tn"hfu of SpeicialSession!Judge ( For SC/ ST} '"6l"di ;;;.'i "i^{Nirg1""d'";tt'dingJisp6sator the criminalPetition in the} interest of iustice.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1OF 2024

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

Smt. Nakrekanti Shailaja, D/o Ramulu, aged 40 years Occ. Govt. Medical officer (NHM), R:/o Flat No. 102, Vidya Vihar Apartment, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶24

...Petitioner/Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant

¶25

AND

¶26

1 . The State of Telangana, Through through Public prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

¶27

.. .Respondent No.1

¶28

Smt. Marri Padma, Wife of Srikanth, Aged 40 years Occ. ADE in TSSPDCL R/o H.No. 8-1S9, boyawada, Nalgonda District.

¶29

.Petitioner/Accused No.1

¶30

Petition under Section 320(2) 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 consequently quash the entire proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 in S.C No. 93 of 2021 on the file of the court of learned Special Sessions Judge (for SC/ST POA Cases) at Nalgonda.

¶31

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf ofthe Respondent No.1 and of Sri M Tarak Abhilash, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶32

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶33

¶34

( I

¶35

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

¶36

I.A.No'1 of 2024 IN /AND CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNo.5792 of 2O21}

¶37

COMMON ORDER:

¶38

It is submitted^{by learned counsel appearing for the} petitioner as well^{as respondentNo'2, that duringpendency ol} the^{present CriminalPetition, the partieshave compromised the} matter and^{accordingly,t'A'No' Iof 2024 has been frled to} record the^{compromise betweenthem and to compoundthe} offences.

¶39

Vide order dated^{18.07' 2024, this Court directed the} parties along u'ith^{theirrespectivecounsel to appear beforc the} Secretary,^{ttigh CourtLegal ServicesCornmittee'High Courttor} the State o[^{Tt'iatngana,t1'ycleraba<1,for identihcation and to} submit a^rc[)ort

¶40

Pursuant^{t() the abovesaid direction issued by this Court'} the parties^{havc appearedand the Secretary'High Court kgal} Services Committcc,^{l-ras idelrtifiecl the parties and submitteda} report, dat('d^{2t).O7.2C,24 and the same is placed on record '}

¶41

[n vicrv of^{the above, l'A'No 'l of2024 isallowed'} Conscqttenth,^{thisCriminal Petition isallowed andthc} prtrcet:dings in^{S-C.No-93 ;-'i 202Lonthe file of the SPecial} Scssiotrs.luc!gt^{(For SCI/S'f POA /rct Cascs)' Nalgonda' against}

¶42

SKS, J 2 Crl.P.No.57S2 of 2O2l

¶43

the petitioner, are hereby^{quashedsubject to the petitioner} paying costs 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, IFSC Code:SBINOO2O07O, MICR^{No.5OO004O57)and} Rs.5,OO0/- (Rupees Five Thousand^{Only) to the TelanganaHigh} Court Advocates Association,^{Hyderabad,u'ithina period of two} (O2) weeks from today and file proof of the^{same before the} Registry.

¶44

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

¶45

closeC.

¶46

AssrsrAff/;Jl'c:S+ffi ,TTRUE COPY'/ (lI

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

The Special Sessions Judge (for SC/ST POA Act Cases) at Nalgonda 2. The Station House Officer, Nalgonda ll Town Police Station, Nalgonda 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶50

One CC to Sri E Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

One CC to Sri M Tarak Abhilash, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CD Copies

¶53

Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise

¶54

¶55

ote: Total Amount of Rs. 10,0001 ( Rupees Ten thousand only )has been paid by sri E Sreenivasa Rao, counsel for the petitioner as directe<i by the Hon'ble court vide order dated 05.08.2024 as Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the "Director, Sainik welfare Hyderabad and Rs. s,0001 ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the Telangana High court Advocates Association, Hyderabad and fired Memo as proof of compliance USR No.109405 of 2024 aod dated 11-1j-2024.

(

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510812024

COMMON ORDER

l.A.No.l ot 2024 ln/and GRLP.No.5792 ot 2021

¶64

eJnE s7
(
L
o 27 EiL 20u
*
t
^4j.C.

¶65

ALLOWING THE CRLP AND IA.NO.I OF 2024

,lrt
o ub

#,l\ /

a,,-- _ ,- -

HIGH COURT F9R THE STATE OF^{TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶70

crl. P No. 5792 012021

¶71

Between.

¶72

Marri Padma, Wo. Srikanth, aged 40^years, Occ: Govt.^EmploYee, Fl/o. H. No. 8-1-69, Boyawada, Nalgonda District.

¶73

... Petitioner/ Accused No.1

¶74

And

¶75

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by^{atsPubllc Prosecutor,} High Cogrt for the State^{of Telangana,Hyderabad}

¶76

Nakerekanti Shaiiaja D/0. Ramulu, aged 40 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. Vidyavihar Apa(ments,^Vidyanagar Nalgonda District.

¶77

Respondent No.1 ... Respondent No.2/ Defacto Compjainant

¶78

JOINT MEMO FILED^{BY EOTH PARTIES}

¶79

-We,boththepartiescompromisedtl'lenratleranlrcablyasperadviceoftheelders and we^-decided to file^{quash petition before thrsHon'.blecourt and the 2'd} Respondenvdefacto complainant^{has nc objecllonto quash the enlire proceedings} against the Petitioner/ Accused^{No 1 in s c No 93 ot 2021 on the file of the courlof} learned special sessions^{Judge (for sc/sT POA Cases) at Nalgonda.we both signedin} this memo with our free^{will and consentandthere is no any coercionor forceagainst us.} Hence this memo is^filed

¶80

P"tik>

¶81

Coun""w[ etitioner

¶82

2'd respondent C ounse i for 2^c^respondent

Smt. Marri Padma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Marri Padma 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

Afreen Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Medisetty Narayana Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Chatrathi Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana

Matta Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

Matta Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

Banoth Shiva Ganga Priya Himalai Vs The State of T.S.