Allowed

Mukku Kanaka Durga Prasad, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Mar 2025CRLP/1643/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition to quash C.C.No.31 of 2011 for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 506 r/w 34 IPC after parties settled the dispute via MOU with permanent alimony. Compromise verified by High Court Legal Services Committee. I.As. permitted compounding; petition allowed and proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.31 of 2011 against accused Nos.1 to 4 quashed; I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 (compounding/compromise) allowed.

Mukku Kanaka Durga Prasad, Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

''^{. :.lii..} l*::*|-.: {- il

¶2

13257¹

¶3

¶4

oF TELANGANA rN rHE^HrGH "orIfflIrtJtoBt#E

¶5

MONDAY,^{THE THIRDDAYOF MARCH} rWO THOUSNND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEJUWADI SRIDEVI}

¶8

l.A. NO:2^{AND3 0F 2025}

¶9

IN/AND CRIMINA LP^{ETITIONNO:1643oF 2025}

¶10

Between:

¶11

1- It/Iukku Kanaka^{Durga PrasadS/o, Late Rama Rao, Aged 45 years,Occ.} ' i*.h"r, Rl/o. Pedana, Krishna District'

¶12

Mukku^{Laksmi Kantamma',W/o Rama Rao'. Aged about'70 years'Occ'} House hold,^{presentlvrJiiilrui'ii i'iii'l zZt^o'tt'tainRoad'Matam Veedi'} pedana,^pedana Xrirnn"]'Xnir,l,^{piui"trtszre66,Rep.bv rr.er} Qei^n9t-o-9r namelv shii^{padamata sbiil"'jiiv"".r,-S/o.Venkateswarao.Aqed 35 years'} occ. Teacher'^{nyo.e-rsri,-Xrini'nitii nttni*"'' Krishna Districf' AP-521369'} lndia

¶13

Mukku^{Vara PrasadS/o' tVlukku Rama Rao' Aged about50 years'Occ'} " 3ig';;T ol.igner' presentlv residing at Britian

¶14

Mukku^{Sunithaw/o. lVlukkuvaraPrasad,Aged about' 44 years' occ house} ' *iie, pt"sently residing at Britian

¶15

Petitioner^{No.3 and 4 hereinRep by their GP^Aholrler namelv Shri Padamata} Satvanaravana,^{slo' ven'#e1""[itit'''ng"d- ls Jears'Occ'teacher' R/o' 3-} ;;0i A';h;';;;;^{nrt', *'iu, ?'iinnaoistrict'AP-521 36e'I nd ia}

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

AND

¶18

The State^{of Telangana,.R"P} Py-il:^{P-Y9li" Prosecutor' High Courtfor the} " Stite of Telangana at Hyderabad lelangana'

¶19

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶20

Smt. Mukku^{Tulasi Durga,'W/o Kan.akgDurgaPrasad' occ Housewife Aged} ' ;i H[:-H.r'io.i-s-zzoiz, ndikmet' Hvderabad'

¶21

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶22

Petition^{under Section482 of Cr'P'Cand 528 of BNSS praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the tMemorandumof Groundsof Criminal Petition' the} High Court^{may be pleased to quashthe proceedingsin C'C No 386 of 2018}

¶23

(old c.c.No.31i,1011 before the Xilr ACJIr/ court at Nampaily) on the fire of XV Addl chief Met'opoiitan Magistrate court at Nampary (in pursuant to FIR No. 401 of 2O1O da,ed^,3.07.2O1O in WpS, CCS, Hyderabad fited u/s 498_4, 406, 506 r/w 34 of tp())

¶24

(As per court order dt.27t2t2| in l.A.No. 4l2S main prayer is arnended)

¶25

l.A. NO: 2 AN D 3 0F 2025

¶26

Between:

¶27

Smt. Mukk r Trrtasi Duroa Wo Kanaka Durga prasad, Occ: Housewife, Aged 42 years. F .No,1_e_27072, AdikmA Hy;";tA. '""'

¶28

AND

¶29

...pETtTtONER/RESpONDENT No. 2

¶30

1 l/ukku Kar aka Duroa prasad S/o. Late Rama Rao, Aged .15 years, Occ. Teacher. R o.^pr:dan"a, Krishna Disirict.^{'-' 's'|I ru' \uv}

¶31

2 Mukku Lak;mi Kantamma..Wo. Rama Rao, Aged about. 7.0 years, Occ. ::e1i{"i!'il?:il[ili:,lii1?il*i.,;alu;yfl :;r??.i#filxs,:,J namety Shr padamata Satyanariyani, S/;. v;;i;i.j"wa.ao z\ged 35 years. occ. Teach;r. R/o.3_150, nitamui. nrtirarn'rr;, i+i:;;, District, Ap

¶32

J Mukku Varir^p.asad S/o Mukku Rama Rao, Aged about. F0 years, Occ. Signat Desir ner, presenfly resioing ,Itiiiiij"""' ^r""

¶33

4 Mukku Suni ha Wo. lVlukku Vara prasad, Aged about. 44 year.s, Occ. house wite, prescn:ly residing at Britian

¶34

Rgljl,_"'.^{N,.3 and 4 herein Rep. by their} GpA hotder namety ljhri padamata i8.lYTfi3 f t : h ii"; #[i ffi :xfl B;,f y"l{B:,riu,,fu lt #;^J; til T

¶35

..,RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶36

5 The State o Telanoana R"p pV_ its public I prosecutor, High Court rvosuu'[ for the state of Tetarsara it Hyderabrd i;i;.s;il:

¶37

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶38

I.A. NO:2 oF 2025

¶39

Petition under S ection 320 (6) br aNlSs praying that in the circumstances stated in the AfficJavit arong with permission, the High court may be preased to permit the parties tr compound the offences in C.C.No.31 of 2O11,rn the file of

¶40

XlIl Addl.^{Chief Judicial MagistrateCourtat Nampally, (FlR No.401 of 2010 dated} 13.07.2010^{in WPS, CCS, Hyderabad)' and allow the Criminal petition'}

¶41

r.A.'No:^{3 0F 2025}

¶42

PetitionunderSection32o(2)ofBNSSprayingthatin.thecircumstances stated in^{the petition to compromise affidavitand along with Joint memo' the} High Court^{may be pleased to record the terms of compromise between..the} partieshereininC.C.No.3,lol20llonthefileofXlltAddl.ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate^{at Nampally, Hyderabad in FIR No'401 of 2010 dated13'07'2010} WPS, CCS,^{Hyderabad and allowthe Criminal Petition'}

¶43

ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheliilemorandumof GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriS.Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate^{for the Petitioner, Public Prosecutor on behalf of the} 1 and of^{Smt.RMadhavi Latha, Advocatefor the Respondent} Respondent^No No.2.

¶44

The Court^{made the following:COMMON ORDER}

-I

I )

\ t

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶49

l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 in/and CRIMINA L PETITION No.164 3 ot 2025

¶50

COMMO N ORDER:

¶51

l-his Oriminal^petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS by the petit oners/accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings against t,tent in C.C.No.31 of 2011 on the file of Xlll .,\dditional Chief Jurlicial lVlagistrate Court at Nampally, registered for the offences punrshable under Sections 4ggA, 406, 506 rlw 34 of IPC.

¶52

2 lt is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitionen as; well as the respondent No.2, that durrng pendency of the pre sen i Criminal petition, the parties have compromised the matter anri accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 have been filed to rer;ord the compromise between them and to compound the offencr:s

¶53

3 Vrde order dated 0g.02.2025, this Court directed thr> parties along witl I their respective counsel to appear befr>re the Secretary,. High Court Legal Services Committee, High C:ourt for the state of -erangana, Hyderabad, for identification and to submit a re :ort.

¶54

¶55

lti I I I : I

¶56

Pursuant^{to the above said direction issued by this Court'} the^{parties have appeared and the Secretary' High CourtLegal} ServicesCommittee,hasidentifiedthepartiesandsubmitteda report,^{dated13.02.2025 and the same is placed on record'}

¶57

5 ln view^{of the above,lA Nos'2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed} this Criminal^{Petitionisallowed and the} ConsequentlY, proceedings^{against the petitioners/accusedNos"1 to 4in} C.C.No.31^{ol 2011 on the file of Xlll AdditionalChiefJudicial} tt/lagistrate^{Court at Nampally' are herebyquashed'}

¶58

It/liscellaneousapplications'ifanypending'shallstand

¶59

closed. sat- n. SREEN NASA^REDDY T REGISTRAR AS SIS ,TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶60

To,

¶61

The^{Xlll AdditionalChiefMetropolitan Magistrate at Nampally'Hyderabad}

¶62

The^{Station House Officer' Women Police Station' CCS' HyderabadCity} Prosecutor'^{Hish courtfor the State of Telanganaat}

¶63

a lY3*"r"r,t"ilfjlr"rf'0""

¶64

One^{CC to Sri S LakshmiKanthAdvocate [OPUCI}

¶65

One^{CCto Smt' R' Madhavi Latha' AdvocateIOPUCI}

¶66

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶67

(Along^{with a copy of Joint Memoof Compromise)}

¶68

\T{ o

¶69

HIGH COURT

¶70

DATED: 03l0it2121

¶71

i lir. s,i
o \i ) A
6r
U\ 291,,:,1 ru5
t'
.t"
*

¶72

COMMON C}RDER l.A. NO: 2 AND 3 OF 2025 IN/A,ND CRLP.No. ft)43 ot ZO2S

¶73

ALLOWING THE
CRIMINAL PETITION
91

¶74

,:':

¶75

1I;

¶76

MEMORANDUMOf,' MISC PE n

¶77

.lii

¶78

' ii HIGH COURT^FOR THE SfITS OF^TE ATnVOnnanan

r'i_

I.A.No. of2025

Crl.P. No. of2025

Between: l1;cr---^{$ura-ilg '}

¶84

Smt. Mukku^{Tulasi Durga, W/o'Kanaka DurgaPrasad,Aged} 42 y ears,H'No'^{1 -9-27012,Adikmet''rottuoul:.r"titioner/Respondent}

¶85

No.2

¶86

And

¶87

1 Mukku Kanaka^{Durga Prasad, S/o' Late Rama Rao, Aged 45 years'} Occ: Teacher,^{R/o.Pedana,Krishna District'}

¶88

2 Mukkd Laksmi^{Kantamma,Wo. Rama Rao,Aged about:70 years'} O.., fl"*.^{fr"ld,presentlyresiclingat H'No'1-2J2-10'Main Road'} Matam Veedi,^{P.edana,Pedana Krlshna,Andhra Pradesh-521366'} Rep by her^{GPAholder namelySlui PadamataSatyanarayana'} i7ol. v.or.ut.trrarao,^{Aged 35 years,occ Teacher, R/o' #3-150'} A-rthamur,^{Arthamuru, KrishnaDistrict,AP'}

¶89

3 MukkuVaraPrasad,S/o.MukkuRamaRao,Agedabout:50years' Occ: Signal Designer,^{presently residingat Britian}

¶90

4 Mukku Sunitha,^{Wo. MukkuVara Prasad, Aged about: 44 years'} Occ: house^{wife, presently resklingat Britian}

¶91

Petitioner^{No.3 & 4 herein Rep'by their GPA holder namely Shri} Padamata^{Satyanarayana,S/o Venkateswarao, Aged 3 5 years'} Oc", Tea"he.,^{nlo. +:-fSO,Arthamur, Arthamuru'Ikishna} District' AP' " 'Respondents/Petitioners

¶92

5 The State^{of Telangana} through Public^Prosecutor, High-Court^{for the State of Telangana,} At Hyderabad. ...Respondent/ResPondent

r,,, 194;^%13

.i;3i i.&

.JOINTMEMO

1 It s srrbrnitted the petitioner herein is the Complainant in the Cll. l.Nc. of 2025, is the wife of Respondent No.1 / petitioner No.l her<in i.,:.. Mukku Kanaka Durga prasad (A-1 in C.C No.31 of 2011). Aggrier t:d by the above Criminal proceedings, the Respondent No.l to 4/ Accused No.1 to 4 therein had preferred the Crl.p No. of 2025 on tl re F [e of this Hon,ble Court, which is pending cons: deration.

¶98

2 It is sr"rtr,ritted that the dispute between the partir;s r,vere settled amicabl.r out of Court at the intervention of thc elcl,:rs. as such an Agre emrlt of Memorandulr of Understanding u a s entered into betr,v:en lhc parlies on 62.02.2025. In terms of the said MOU the Resptndent No.1 herein and family members have settled and pay the perm rnent arimony to the petitioner herein. Since rhc disputes between the p rrtir::r are settled, the petitioner deposed aflrdavit er pressing her no objec,ior to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3i t20j7 on the file of XIII \ddl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally. Hyderabad in pursumce to FII{ No.401 of 2010 dated l3.Oi.2)ll) \?S, CCS, Hyde abzLd The petitioner,{Respondent No.2 ,hdiein ard Respondent No. t o 4 r^petitioners have no claims against each other.

¶99

t4,tr1'^;?

¶100

n tulo-touw

¶101

.r-;:':4.-ra.Y: j,'r!'1,:;*'ila-

¶102

¶103

It is therefore^{prayedthat this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to record} the compromise^{andquash the proceedings in C'C'No'2l/2011on the file ol} xlII Addl.^{chiefMetropotitan Magistrateat Nampally,Hyderabadin FIR} No.401 of^{2010 dated 13'07'2010WPS, CCS' Hyderabadand to pass such other} order or^{orders as this Hon'ble Courtmay deem fit and proper in the} circumstances^{of the case}

¶104

v ffr'Yl/a{r^DLWa' PetitiSner /^{ResPondent No 2}

¶105

Res^p ondents

¶106

1 (V. U^"t"O [Ll-(q.^hrq- 2 ? Couniel^for Petitioner^/ espondent^{No 2}

¶107

3 ft

¶108

4 P" S"l6"ua7"*

¶109

onde oners Counsel

¶110

: aal* ''"' "r-;-C"$&ti

Mukku Kanaka Durga Prasad, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukku Kanaka Durga Prasad, 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

Pothula Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana

Muthyala Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Pudur Arun Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Raj Purohith Mahender Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Kamuni Santosh Kumar Vs Smt.Radhika Killary

Sai Vs The State of Telangana