Disposed

Thatisetti Ramesh @ Ramesh Vardhan v. The State of Telangana.

Telangana HC4 Sept 2024CRLRC/624/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a criminal revision case noting that the cause for adjudication ceased as parties entered a matrimonial settlement. The Court set aside an interim stay order recorded in the compromise petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of and the order of the lower court is set aside due to the entered Matrimonial Settlement Deed.

Thatisetti Ramesh @ Ramesh Vardhan Vs The State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2024)

[^32ee ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 624 OF 2024

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.PC against the Judgment daled 1010412024 made in MC.No.100 ot 2023 (old MC.No.259 of 2018) on the file of the Court of the Judge, ll Additional Family Court cum XV Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Kalapataru Complex, City Civil Cou(, Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Thatisetti Ramesh @ Ramesh Vardhan, S/o Late T. Krishna Swam-. Aged about 35 years, Occ. Software Engineer, R/o H.l'1o.3-9-536/2, Opposite to Nagarjuna School, Srirama Hills Colony, Mansoorabad. LB Nagar, RR District., Telangana State-

¶12

... Revision Petitioner/Respondent

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State of Telangana., Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

¶15

Z Janampally Sneha @Thatisetti Sneha, Wo Thatisetti Ramesh @ Ramesh Vardhan, D/o Janampally Murali, Aged about 30 years. Occ. Housewife, Both presently residing at K. No.9-7 -7 21111 , Niaruthinagar, Champapet, Hyderabad

¶16

T.Hemanth, S/o T.Ramesh, Aged about 4 years, Occ. Student, (Rep. by his Natural Mother i.e.. Respondent 4 2) Both presently residing at K. No.9-7 -7 2/ 1 /1 , Niaruthinagar, Champapet, Hyderabad.

...Respondents

lA NO:2 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

Janampally Sneha @Thatisetti Sneha, W/o Thatisefti Ramesh @ Ramesh Vardhan, D/o Janampally Murali, Aged about 30 years. Occ. Housewife, Both presently residing at K. No 9-7 -7 21111, Niaruthinagar, Champapet, Hyderabad.

¶21

2, T.Hemanth, S/o T.Ramesh, Aged about 4 years, Occ. Student, (Rep. by his Natural Mother i.e.. Respondent 4.2) Both presently residing at K. No.9-7 -7 2/ 1 /1, Niaruthinagar, Champapet, Hyderabad.

¶22

...Petitioners/Respondent Nos.2 & 3

¶23

AND

¶24

'1 . Thatisetti Ramesh @ Ramesh Vardhan, Sio Late T. Krishna Swam-. Aged about 35 years, Occ. Software Engineer, R/o H.No.3-9-536/2, Opposite to Nagarjuna School, Srirama Hills Colony, Mansoorabad. LB Nagar, RR Di strict., Telangana State,

¶25

Ttre State of Telangana., Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

¶26

...RespondenURespondent No.1

¶27

Pr:tition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated irr the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the lnterim Stay order passed in LA. No. 1 ol 2024 in Crl.R.C No.624 <tf 2024 dated: 02-05-2024.

¶28

lA NO:^'f OF 2024

¶29

P,-.tition under Section 482 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of Orders dated 1010412024 passed in M.C. No.1 00 of 2023 (Old M.C No.259 of 2018) on the file of ll Additional Family court -cum- XV Metropolitan Session; Judge, Kalpataru Complex, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P Vamsheedhar Reddy

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : M/s. S madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶32

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 & 3 : Sri S Someshwar Rao

¶33

The Corlrt made the following: ORDER

¶34

HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEE.V.VDNUGOPAL}

¶35

CRIMINAL Revision^{CaseNo.624 of 2o24}

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Today when the^{matter is taken-upfor hearing,learnedcounsel} for the revision^{petitionerwould fairly submit that the cause in the} subject matter^{does not survivefor adjudication,since the parties to} the present revision^{case haveenteredinto compromisevide} Memorandum of^{Understanding-cum-Matrimonial SettlementDeed} dated,lL.oT.2024whilethepresentrevisioncaseispendingbefore this Court.

¶38

Learned counsel^{for the revisionpetitioner further submitsthat} during the^{pendencyof this revision case, I'A'Nos'3 and 4 of 2024} werefiledinCrl.P.No.S6Tsof2024torecordthecompromisebetween the parties and^{to compound the offence' Accordinglythis Court has} recorded the^{compromiseand granted the relief as soughtfor in the} said criminal Petition.

¶39

1 \

¶40

Learned counsel^{further submits that though the cause in the} present criminal revision^{case does not survive,still the orderpassed} by the learned^{Judge, II Additional Family Court-Cum-XVAdditional} Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge,KalpataruComplex,City Civil Court' at} Hyderabad in^{M.C.No.1OOof 2023 (Old M'C'No'259of 2018) will be} effective until and unless^{this Court comcsto tlre co4q!us:io4-l!hqt tbe}

¶41

¶42

said order has to^{be set-aside in view of the Matrimonial Settlement} DeeC entered between^{the revisionpetitioner and respondent dated} 11.o7.2024.

¶43

4 karned counsel for^{the un-officialrespondentis present and} tak,:s no objection.

¶44

Recording the submissions^{made by the learned counselon} both sides and in terms^{of Memorandumof Undcrstanding-cum-} Matrimonial Settlement^{Deed dated 11.07.2024, this Crimina'l} Revision Case is disposed^{of and the order passedby the learned} Jurige, II Additional^{Family Court-Cum-XVAdditionalMetropolitan} Sessions Judge, Kalpataru^{Complex,Cily Civil Court, at Hyderabad} in M.C.No. 10O of 2023^{(Old M.C.No.259 of 201B) isset-aside'} However, it is needless^{to mention t-hat both the parties are at liberty} to work out their remedies^{in case of breach of termsof Memorandum} of Understanding-cum-Matrimonial^{SettlementDeeddated} - 11.07.2024.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions,^{ifany, pending jnthis criminal} re trision case, shall also^standclosed. Sd,.^{M. MA} NJULA STRAR DEP^UTYREGI ,/TRUE^COPY" SECTION oFFICER^I To, , t_^.,r+^,,m XV Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge'} ,,l:i;,,:t3[".ffi iil,:3Ji"U,[f:5;,['3;H'xil"s,,,"orruunsanaa'1 I Two'CCs^{to the Put} Hvderabad [OUT] a6.r.tv Advocate [OPUCI 1 3l:^{ss [ :li *n:m'*i[lfJ;]xl3ib'o"r} 5.^{Two CD CoPtes}

C.-

HIGH COURT

DATI]D:0410912024

ORDER

CRLIIC.N o.624 of 2024

¶51

C R l liE 5 14
t, . .
o
I 2 0 il[ti 202t !-
.s
.=a *
6.rr)_l :il, ,

¶52

DISF,OSING OF THE CRLRC

¶53

8cofuA
ti-
if'[,<br>

Thatisetti Ramesh @ Ramesh Vardhan v. The State of Telangana.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thatisetti Ramesh @ Ramesh Vardhan 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

Ghulam Mohammed Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Mumai Ramesh, Vs Sri N. Sudershan Rao and 4 Ors.

Gopalakishan Agarwal, Hyd Vs Md. Aslam, Secbad and 2 Othrs

Saggem RajaMani Vs Bude Swamy

Damerla Praveen Vs Dasari David and another

Smt. Janampally Sneha alias Thatisetti Sneha Vs The State of Telangana