Allowed

Macherla Deendayal Veeraswamy Sambaiah Deendayal v. Kotagiri Laxmi

Telangana HC9 Aug 2024CRLP/8118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed the Criminal Petition and two miscellaneous applications to compound offences. The proceedings in SPL.S.C.No.191 of 2021 were quashed subject to the payment of a sum by the petitioners as part of a compromise.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in SPL.S.C.No.191 of 2021 quashed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 to Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad and Rs. 5,000 to Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad.

Macherla Deendayal Veeraswamy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

l.A.Nos.3 and 4 ot 2024 in/and

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No: 81 18 ot 2O24

¶8

Between:

¶9

Macherla Deendayal @ Veeraswamy Sambaiah Deendayal, S/o Sambaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.17-10-85, Ursu, Kareemabad, Warangal.

¶10

Ivlohd. Jameel, S/o Yakub Miya, Age, 54 years, Occ. Business, R/o^'18-1- 170i-1, Ursu, Kareemabad, Warangal.

¶11

Macherla Neeraja, Wo Chennaroo, Age. 50 years, Occ: Housewife,^R/o. H.No.1 7-10-85, Ursu, Badrai, Warangal.

¶12

Macherla Mayuri, Wo Deendayal, Age: 40 years, Occ: Housewife,^R/o. H.No. 1 7-10-85, Ursu, Badrai, Warangal.

¶13

.-. Petitioners/Acc used No.1 to 4

¶14

AND

¶15

Kotagiri Laxmi, Wo. Suneel, Age:33 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Shaympet Village,GeesugondaMandal. ...RespondenUDefactoComplainant

¶16

State of Telangana, rep. by P.P. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶17

...Respondent

¶18

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 Spl.S.C.No.191 of 2021 on the^{fiie of Vll} Addl. District and Sessions Court-cum-SC/ST cases at Warangal.

¶19

l.A. NO: 2OF 2024

¶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 Courtmay} be pleased to stay of all further Proceedings including appearance of^the petitioner in Spl,S.C.No.191 of 2O21 on the file of Vll Addl. District and Sessions Court-cum-SC/ST cases at Warangal,^{pending quash petition.}

¶21

l.A. No: 3 of 2A24

¶22

Between:

¶23

Kolagiri Laxmi, Wo. Suneel, Age: 33 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Shaympet Village, Geesugonda Mandal.

¶24

...RespondenUDe facto Complainant

¶25

AND

¶26

Macherla Deendayal @ Veeraswamy Sambaiah Deendayal, S/o Sambaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. l7-10-85, Ursu, Kareemabad, Warangal.

¶27

Mohd. Jameel, S/o Yakub Miya, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o 1B-1170/1 , Ursu, Kareemabad, Warangal.

¶28

Macherla Neera.ja, Wo Chennaroo, Age: 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.'17-10-85, Ursu, Badrai, Warangal.-

¶29

Macherla Mayuri, Wo Deendayal, Age: 40 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 17-10-85. Ursu, Badrai, Warangal

¶30

...Respondents/Petitioners/A1 -A4

¶31

5 gtate of Telangana, rep. by P.P. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶32

...Respondent

¶33

Petition under Section 320 (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 permit the petitioner to file petition to compound the offences and to quash the proceedings in spl. S.c.191 of 2o21 on the file of Vu Addl. District and Sessions Court- cum-SC/ST Cases at Warangal.

¶34

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2024

¶35

Petition under section 32o (2) of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High courl may be pleased to compound the offences and to quash the proceedings in Spl. s.c.191 ot 2021 on the file of Vll Addl. District and sessions court-cum-SC/sr Cases at Warangal. The Assistant Commissioner of police, Warangal.

¶36

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri p PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the petitioners and the Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri slRl VENNELA KANDALA, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶37

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶38

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K.^SUJANA

¶39

I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2O24

¶40

inland CRIMINAL PETITION No.8118^of2024

¶41

COMMON ORDER:

¶42

It is submitted by learned^{counsel appearingfor the} petitioners as well as ttre respondent^No.1 ,^{that during} pendency of the present Criminal^{Petition,the parties have} compromised the matter^{and accordingly, I-A-Nos'3 and 4 of} 2024 lnave been filed to^{record the compromise between them} and to compound the offences.

¶43

Vide order dated 23.07.2024,^{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 identificationand to} submit a report.

¶44

Pursuant to the above said^{direclionissued by this Court'} the parties have appeared and^{the Secretary,High Court Legal} Services Committee, has^{identified ttre parties and submitteda} report, dated O1.O8.2024^{and the same is placedon record'}

¶45

[n view of the above,^{I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2024 ate allowed'} Consequently, this Criminal^{Petitionisallowed andthe} proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.191^{of2O2l on the file ofVII} Additional District and^{Sessions Court-Cum-SC/STcasesat}

¶46

¶47

warangal against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 4 are hereby quashed subject to the petitioners paying an amount of Rs.S,OOO/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c-No.S2lg8 926229, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch (2OOZ O),IFSC Code:SBINOO2OO7O, MICR No.5OOOO4OS7) and Rs.5,O0O/_ (Rupees Five Thousarrd only) to the Tetangana High court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, within a period of two (O2) weeks from today and Iile proof of the same before the Registry.

¶48

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶49

closed.

¶50

Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR N

,TRUE COPY//

sEcTtoN oFFrcER

To,

The Vll Addl. District and Sessions Court-cum-SC/ST cases at Warangal. 2. The Station House Officer, Mills Colony police Station, Warangal Urban District.

¶55

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, (OUT)

¶56

One CC to SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to SRI SIRI VENNELA KANDALA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Two CD Copies

¶59

(Along with a Copy of Memo of Compromise)

¶60

Note: Total Amount of Rs. 10,0001 ( Rupees Ten thousand only ) has been paid by sRl P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, counsel for the petitioner as directed by the Hon'bre court vide order dated 09-08-2024 as Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the^"Director, Sainik Welfare Hyderabad, and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only ) to the Telangana High court Advocates Association, Hyderabad and fired Memo as proof of compliance USR No. 96750 dated 09_09_2024.

¶61

Kam/DL

¶62

¶63

HIGH COURT DATED:09lOBl2024

¶64

COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2024 lnland CRLP.No.8118 ot 2024

¶65

()/
( oG 1HE ST4 f,r'
I :) 21 [iT m2{
\ i'ss,'
-r=:-

¶66

BOTH l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of ZO24 AND CRIMINAL PETITION ARE ALLOWED

qc"f'nA W {';tA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATtr OF TELANGANA AT TryDERABAD

¶71

Crl.P.No. of 2OD4

¶72

Between: 1. Macherla Deendayal @^{Veeraswamy Sambaiai} Deendayal S/o Sambaiah, aged about S0 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No.17-10-BS, Ursu, Kareemabad, Warangal.

¶73

1. Mohd. Jameel S/o yakub Miya Aged about 54 years, Occ : Business, R/o 18-1-170/1, Ursu, Kareemabad, Warangal.

¶74

1. Macherla Neeraja, W/o Chennaroo Aged about 5O years, Occ : Housewife, R/o. H.No.17-1O-85, Ursu, Badrai, Warangal

¶75

1. Macherla Ma5ruri W/o Deendayal Aged about 40 years, Occ : Housewife, R,/o. H.No. I7- lO-85, Ursu, Badrai, Warangal ...^petitioners/ Accused No.1 to 4

¶76

¶77

1. Kotagiri Laxmi W/o. Suneel, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Shaympet Village, Geesugonda Mandal, ... Respondent/

¶78

De facto complainant

¶79

2 State of Telalgana rep. by p.p. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. .. Respondent

¶80

COMPROMIStr MEMO FILED BY THE PtrTITIONtrRS AND 1ST RESPONDENT /D E FACTO COMPLAINANT O-^

¶81

k s$E ..!.' E- (.... 1

¶82

-k A*J (2

¶83

F,,4 , tr-\ .,. <--

¶84

;i ll li I .i

¶85

¶86

il l ljl ii iti ]i l ui rl ji I j I

ll l

1 . The petitioners are, accused No. 1 to 4 in SplS.C.191 of 2O2I on rhe Iile of VII Addl. Disrricr and Sessions Court-cum-SC/ST Cases at Waralgal. The Assistant Commissioner of police, Waralgal filed charge sheet against ttre petitioners under sections 29e, 320 rf w 34 IPC and 3(1) (r)(s) and s(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST (poA) Act.

¶91

2, The case of the prosecution is as follows: ,

¶92

On O3-OB-202 1, the de facto complainant gayo a report in the police station alleging that on O3_OB_2O2L at about 10:OO am, she went to the house of ,{1 on O1.I1.2O2O and on that day he execuLed an agreement in respect of 5OO Sq. yards in Sy.No.270 ,2ZL and.272 orrd when she asked to registered the said land in their name, A1 and his family members abused her husband by taking caste name and a-lso abused her in the name of her caste stating that "erukala lanja nuwu nee bartha ni teskoni vachava, ni thammuni teskoni vachava,, when her brother interfered the family members of A1 and Jameel abused him in filthy language arrd also beat him with hands. Due to which her brother feit insuited arld consumed pesticide. Later, he was taken to the hospital

,rT*;,*.,r)

rl ,i I i t I i l

l ! I 1; !: i, l I .) i, ll l: lr, ,i:l iti ,i)rl: ri.il i,t: I: ,:l;r:i,^l ,i! i: -l .l ir, ,i, l,l iii l!l , ',, ,1, . :

¶97

¶98

and after giving treatment her brother was discharged. Il/ith the above allegations, a report was given by the,do facto complainant against Al and his fam ily members arid one Jameel ald basing on the said report, a caoe in Cr.No.275 of 2O2l of mills colony police station was registered under above section.

¶99

It is submitted that the 3,d petitioner gave a report in the police station against the de facto complainant on O3-OB-2O21 alleging that there was a land disputes between Samudrala Swamy arrd her father-in-law Macherla Sambaiah. In the said land disputes, it was agreed to give 5OO Sq. Yards after the case \yas withdrawn which was instituted against the 1sr petitioner relating to Kotagiri Saramma. The said case is still pending arrd pending that case the lst respondent a_nd others came to the house of the 3.a petitioner and abused. in frlthy language and beaten them to kill and with a view to create nuisance, the brother of the respondent consumed pesticides ald thereafter he was discharged after glvmg treatment. Basing on that, a case was registered against thc l.t respondent in Cr.No.276 of 2O2l uleder secrions 44a, 2gO,323, 506 r/w 34 IpC by the sub inspector of Mills colony police station. After !). mdl--.l K^.sp t, 1-t, \J.--g*L

¶100

il ii :iil 1i l il rlii l I

ti I 'r il il

1 I l

l. t

investigation, charge sheet was neld against tfre lst respondent and two others and same was taken on Iile as ir C.C.No.347 of 2O2l on the hle of VII Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal.

¶108

The petitioners submit that during pendency of trial of the case, the petitioners and de facto complainant settled their disputes and compromised wittr the matter at the instance of the elders. As per the compromise, the case instituted by the lst respondent against the petitioners and the case instituted by . the 3rd petitioner against the l.t respondent shall be withdrawn by liling necessdry petitionS. The 1s- respondent and the petitioners shall not interfere each other in respect of their private life as per the compromise. The compromise was made with a view to live amicably and peacefully. The l"t respondent does not want to prosecute the petitioners any further in view of the compromise, similarly, the 3.d petitioner does not want to proceed with the case against the 1"t respondent in view of the compromise- In the event of Jrroceeding with the case after compromise, there calnot be aly conviction and there is no lruitlul result in the case. /--\ <,#,L ,

¶109

¶110

L<r \V

¶111

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'lrle court^{may be.} pleased to quash the proceedings in Spl. S.C.^{191 of 2O2l} on the file of VII Addl. District and Sessions^Court-eum- SC/ST.Cases at Warangal ald^{pa-ss such otherorder or}

¶112

orders as deem ht and^proper.

¶113

Counsel for the Petitioners

¶114

Counsel for the Respondent^Nc.1 Hyd.erabad^', / Date:lr .47 2024 I

¶115

1
2 ,r+J.r"/
3' N't, N...o(q z/
a s4 *^[l
Petitioners. /
v' q"I', /
i:;[,i,it",fr" r

Macherla Deendayal Veeraswamy Sambaiah Deendayal v. Kotagiri Laxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Macherla Deendayal Veeraswamy Sambaiah Deendayal v. Kotagiri Laxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Chawan Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Taksheel Solutions Limited, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri Vanam Ashok Vs The state of Telangana

Manuka Mallesham Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Kiran Kumar Atluri Vs State of Telangana

Anandasi Ravi Babu@Babu. Vs Chidumula Venkatreddy