Allowed

Smt. Kalpana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Sept 2024CRLP/9763/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal petitions seeking quashing of proceedings based on a recorded compromise. The Court directed the accused to pay a fine to the Sainik Welfare and the Advocates Association and then quashed the FIR against six accused persons.

What did the court decide?

All criminal proceedings in FIR No. 358 of 2024 against Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are quashed subject to payment of fines. Accused to pay Rs. 5,000 to Sainik Welfare and Rs. 5,000 to TELANGANA High Court Ad

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

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2024

¶7

in / and

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9763 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt Kalpana, W/o. tt/lattapalli Narsimha, Aged 37 years, Occ. Record Assistant, R/o. H.No. 2-10, Tallasingaram, Choutuppal Mandad, Yadadri^- Bhongir District

¶11

tvlattapalli Saiteja, S/o. Mattapalli Narsimha, Aged 21 years, Student, R/o. H.No. 2-12, Tallasingaram, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District

¶12

3- I/attapalli Charan Teja, S/o. Mattapalli Narsimha, Aged 19^years, Student, R/o. H.No. 2-10, Tallasingaram, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District

¶13

Mattapalli Saidulu, S/o. t\4attapalli [r4uthyalu, Aged 36 years, Occ, Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 348, Tallasingaram, Choutuppal^Arlandal, Yadadri^- Bhongir District

¶14

Garise Sridhar, S/o. G Kistaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ. Employee, R/o. H.No.296, Chinna Kondur, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District

¶15

I\4attapalli Kavitha, Wo- M Narsimha, Aged 39 years, Housewife, R/o.^H.No- 2-10, Tallasingaram, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District

¶16

...Petitioners / Accused 1-6

¶17

AND

¶18

1- The State of Telangana, through Choutuppal Police Station, Rep.^{by Public} Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad

¶19

2, Dasari Janaiah, S/o. D Lalaiah, Aged 42^years, Occ. Senior Assistant,^O/o. Tahsildar, Narayanapuram, R/o. H.No. 1-96, Thandedar Pally, Thipparthy Mandal, Kesharajpally, Yadadri - Bhuvanagiri District

¶20

...Respondents / Defacto Complainant

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. rlw 528 of BSS^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition,the}

¶22

High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in F.l.R. No. 358 of 2024 dt. 25-05-2024 on the file of Choutuppal Police Station, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶23

l.A. NO: 2OF 2024

¶24

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 stay all further proceedings in F.l.R. No. 358 of 2024 dt. 2510512024 on the file of Choutuppal Police Station, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶25

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024

¶26

Between:

¶27

Dasari Janaiah, S/o. D Lalaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ. Senior Assistant, O/o Tahsildar, Narayanapuram, R/o. H,No. 1-96, Thandedar Pally, Thipparthy Mandal, Kesharajpally, Yadadri - Bhuvanagiri District

¶28

...Petitioner / 2'd Respondent / Defacto Complainant in l.A. No. 3 & 4 of 2024

¶29

AND

¶30

Smt Kalpana, Wo. tvlattapalli Narsimha, Aged 37 years, Occ. Record Assistant, R/o. H.No. 2-10, Tallasingaram, Choutuppal Mandad, Yadadri - Bhongir District

¶31

Mattapalli Saiteja, S/o. Mattapalli Narsimha, Aged 21 years, Student, R/o. H.No. 2-12, Tallasingaram, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District

¶32

Mattapalli Charan Teja, S/o. tulattapalli Narsimha, Aged 19 years, Student, R/o. H.No. 2-10, Tallasingaram, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District

¶33

Maftapalli Saidulu, S/o. Alattapalli tvluthyalu, Aged 36 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 348, Tallasingaram, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir Distr,ict

¶34

Garise Sridhar, S/o- G Kistaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ. Employee, Rio. H.No.296, Chinna Kondur, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District

¶35

I/attapalli Kavitha, Wo. lM Narsimha, Aged 39 years, Housewife, R/o. H.No. 2-10, Tallasingaram, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District

¶36

...Respondents / Petitioners / Accused 1- 6

¶37

in l.A. No. 3 & 4 of 2O24

¶38

7 The State of Telangana, through Choutuppal Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad

¶39

. . . Respondents

¶40

in l.A. No. 3 & 4 of 2O24

¶41

Petition under Section 320 (6) rlw 482 of Cr.P.C. & 359^{(6) of BNSS} praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^{permitthe Petitioner /} Defacto Complainant to compound the offence in F.l.R. No. 358^{of 2024 on the} file of Choutuppal Police Station, Yadadri Bhongir^{Districtand quashthe} proceedings in F.l.R. No. 358 of 2O24.

¶42

l.A. NO: 4OF 2024

¶43

Petition under Section 320 (2) rlw 482 of Cr.P.C. &^{359 (2) of BNSS} praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of^{Grounds of} Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^{recordthe compromise} between the Petitioner / De-facto Complainant^{and the Respondents / Accused} and quash the proceedings in F.l-R. No. 358^{of 2024 on the file of Choutuppal} Police Station, Yadadri Bhongir Distrrct against^Accused.

¶44

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearing the arguments of Sri E Srinivasa} Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and^{Additional Public Prosecutoron behalf} of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri M^{Raiasekhar Reddy, Advocate for the} Respondent No- 2-

¶45

The Court made the following^{CommonOrder :}

¶46

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

¶47

I.A.Nos.3 and 4^{of 2O24}

¶48

in/and CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO.9763 of2024}

¶49

COMMO N ORDER:

¶50

It is submitted by^{learnedcounsel appearing for the} petitioners as well as the^{respondent No'2, that during} pendency of the^present Criminal^{Petition, the parties have} compromisid the^{matter and accordingly, I'A'Nos'3 and 4 of} 2Ci24 lrave^{been hled to record the compromise between them} and to compound^{the offences.}

¶51

¶52

Vide order dated^{23.O8.2O24,this Courtdirected lhe} parties along with^{their respective counsel to appear before the} Secretary, High^{Court trgal ServicesCommittee, HighCourt for} the State of^{Telangana, Hyderabad,for identification and to} submit a report.

¶53

Pursuant to the^{above said direction issued by this Court'} tl.e parties have^{appeared and the Secretary, High Court kgal} Services Committee,^{has identilied the parties and submitted a} report, dated 30.Oa.2O24^{and the sameis placedon record'}

¶54

4 In view of the above,^{I.A.Nos.3and 4 of 2024ase allowed'} Petition is allowed^andthe Consequently, this^Criminal proceedings in Crime No.358 of 2024 of^{ChoutuPPalPolice} Station, Yadadri-Bhongir District, against the

.:-

(^l

petitioner/accused Nos.1 to 6 are hereby quash€d subject to tlle Thousand Only) to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c.No.S2188926279, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch (2OO7O), IFSC Code:SBINOO2OO7O, MICR No.5OOOO4057) and Rs.S,OOO/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, within a period of two (O2) weeks from today and file proof of the same before the Registry.

¶59

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- N.

¶60

Sd/- N.^SRIHARI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To, 1 The Judicial^{First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal'} 2 The station^{nouse om"erl'chlotupprrPS Rachakonda District} :. t*o^{ccs to the punric proJecJtil"n'gnCo"t ror the state of Telangana'} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶65

4- One CC^{to Sri E SrintvasaReddy' Advocate [OPUC]} i. Eii" ;;^{i; # t'rt Ruju"r]." Reidv'Advocate [oPUCl} 6. Two^{CD CoPies}

¶66

VA/DL

¶67

Along^{with a copy of Joint Memoof Compromtse}

¶68

Note:^{Total Amount of Rs_ 10.000/- ( RupeesTen thousand onry) hasbeen paid by} Sri E^{Sreenivas Reddy, Counselfor the Petitioners as directedby the Hon'bleCourt} vide Order^{dated 05-09-2024as Rs. 5'000/- ( Rupees Fivethousand only) to the} Director,^{Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad'and Rs 5'000/- ( RupeesFivethousandonly )} to the^{TelanganaHigh Court AdvocatesAssociation' Hyderabad and filed Memo as} proof of compliance^{USR No' 90597of 2024 daled19-Os-2O24'}

¶69

¶70

)

¶71

HIGH COURT DATED:0510912024

¶72

COMMON ORDER

¶73

l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2024

¶74

.oti 'l 11€ sl r,' (1.
ct
J
o,) f
2 2 Dtr ?ut
<br>-Sr,11 rr, ',: '

¶75

in / and

¶76

CRLP.No.9763 of 2024

¶77

ALLOWING THE CRLP AND

¶78

l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 ot 2024

¶79

q^coQ(oL frw

¶80

¶81

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDf*l RABAD CRL.P.No. 44 oF 2024

¶82

011.Smt.Kalpana[A.1], W/oMattapalliNarsimha,
Aged37 years,
Occ:RecordAssistant,
R/oH.No. 2-10,
Tallasingaram, ChoutuppalMandal,
Yadadri-BhongirDistrict.
021.Mattapalli Saiteja,
S/oMattapalliNarsimha,
Aged 21years,Student,
R/oH.No.2-12,Tallasingaram, ChoutuppalMandal,
Yadadri-BhongirDistrict.
031.MattapalliCharan Teja, S/o MattapalliNarsimha, Aged19years,Student,
R/oH.No.2-10,Tallasingaram,
Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir D	istrict.
041.Mattapalli Saidulu, S/oMattapalli Muthyalu,
Aged36years, Occ:PrivateEmployee, Vo^H.No.3-48,Tallasingaram, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-BhongirD	istrict.
051.GariseSridhar, S/oG.Kistaiah,
Aged38years,Occ:Employee, R/o H.No.2-96,ChinnaKondur,
C[routuppalMandal, Yadadri-BhongirDistrict.
<br>^{'ko}(ahA t4* LM.Si.t{u ftQchab.n& t^rr,?	6 M<sup>rPd i@'-	M@

¶83

¶84

O6l. Mattapalli Kavitha, W/o M. Narsimha,

¶85

Aged 39 years, Housewife, Vo^{H.No. 2-10,} Tallasingaram, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District. ...PETITIONERS/

¶86

....ACCUSED 1 - 6

¶87

-VERSUS-

¶88

The State of Telangana, Through Choutuppal Pollce Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶89

Dasari Janaiah, S/o D.Lalaiah, Aged 42 years,

¶90

Occ: Senior Assista nt, O/o Tahsildar, Narayanapuram, R/o H.No. 1-96, Thandedar Pally, Thipparthy Mandal, Kesharajpally, Yadadri - Bhuvanagiri District. ... RESPOPNDENTS/ ....DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶91

)OINT MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/ACCUS ED AND 2ND RESPONDENT

¶92

It is submitted that 2nd respondent lodged a complaint alleging that he is working as Senior Assistant in Tahsildar Office, Narayanapuram and that Smt. l(alpana who is working as Record Assistant in the same office putting trouble by telling fellow staff about their wife's husband personal matters and in that regard he <sup>qkAe.uq -J fqrthakqN teie ,g vV,"B@^o.o *)" '- nr. S)JJ'rrn 3^{oe e/} 6p

¶93

¶94

reported to the Tahsildar^{and counseled but she did not changeand} on that he again complained^to Tahsildar^{and on 24-05-2024} evening at about 5.00^{p.m. couflseledthembefore office staff after} that she went to home at 5.30^{p'm'and by keeping the same in} mind Kalpana and her sons^{and others trespassed in to my house and} abused and beat me with sticks^{and causedinjuriesand threatened} him to kill. Hence he^{requested to take action against them'} Accordingly, the^{police registeredthe said complaint as case in Crime} No. 358 of 2024 under^{Section452, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and} later the Police added^{Section 3(1) (0 & 3(1) (s) ofSC/ST(POA)} Amendment Act, 2015 on^27-05-2024.

¶95

It is humbly submitted^{that duringthe pendencyof the} proceedings, well wishers and^{colleaguesin the office where the} 1't Petitioner and 2nd^{respondentare working andthe elders} intervened and advised^{them to settle the disputes amicablyso as} to put an ever ending^{disputes and to maintain harmony in} working^place and to^{avoid trivial issues since the dispute arose} out of misunderstanding^{cropped between them during their} performance of their respective^{duties in the office of Tahsildar.} Therefore they advised^{the parties to amicably settlethe matter.} Pursuant to the settlement,^{both the 1't Petitioner and2nd} eW I r.r.'!^)g*^ =^{lrn-cholafr te",q} M,".! e M'&.fftJa , r]4 {)1,---^{o /qg ooQ/}

¶96

¶97

respondent arrived at setflement to put an end to the litigations 1 and compromised our disputes by withdrawing their respective criminal cases filed against each other. In view of the settlement and compromise of the matter between the parties, 2nd respondent is not interested to continue and prosecute the criminar proceedings against the petitioners/Accused and he has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Therefore the continuation of proceedings against the Accused are nothing abusing the process of the court. It is submitted that 2nd respondent entered into compromise with the Petitioners/Accused on hrs c,vun vorition and wiil and consent. There is no coerce, force, any undue influence and co[usion. In view of the settlement and compromise, no purpose would be served if the proceedings are continued against the Accused and therefore the proceedings against the Accused are liable to be quashed' In view of the facts and circumstances and in the right oF settlement, if the proceedings in F.I.R.NO. 358 of 2024 against the Petitioners are not quashed, the Accused will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶98

It is prayed that this Hon,ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise between the petitioner/de_facto N'k.l?c,.y,q 7 ( rn.clral"on lciq

¶99

¶100

complainant and the respondents/Accused^{and quash the} proceedings in F.I.R. No. 358 of 2024 on the^{file of Choutuppal} Police Station, Yadadri Bhongir^{District againstAccused andpass} such other or further orders^{as this Hon'ble Court may deernfit and} proper.

¶101

O1]. SMT. MATTAPALLI^KALPANA

¶102

nO i^M'$+<9 O2]. MATTAPALLI SAITEJA'

¶103

rn.^{fl'olc,.f'+eiq} 03] MATTAPALLI CHARAN^TEJA

¶104

a-t-t^{),.LG 04]. MATTAPALLI SAIDULU

¶105

05]. GARISE SRIDHAR

¶106

I *^lfiSoe%' 06]. MATTAPALLLI^KAVITHA

¶107

M& '-' { .J " zND RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶108

COUNSEL FOR^{THE PETITIONERS} R,^Y+d-.-R"JV ( COUNSEL FOR THE^{RESPONDENTNO.2}

Smt. Kalpana v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kalpana 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

Kadarla Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Bollineni Srujan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Avagani Narasimha Vs The State of Telangana

Malkedi Nageshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Vessella Greens Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Pyreddy Prashanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana