Disposed

Butharaju Raghavendra v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Mar 2025CRLP/3271/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of a matrimonial cruelty case after an amicable settlement between the accused family and the de-facto complainant. The court allowed compounding applications and quashed all pending trial-court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 allowed; all proceedings in C.C.No.592 of 2024 quashed against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5; Criminal Petition disposed of.

Butharaju Raghavendra Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

LA.Nos.3 and 4 of2025

¶7

ln/and

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3271 OF 2025

¶9

l.A.Nos. 3 and 4 ot 2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt.lVlustipally Nandu, W o.Raghavendra,^{D/o.Shankar, Aged about23 years, Occ.} House Wife, R/o.Chepur ' Petitioner/ Respondent No.2 in both l.A.Nos. Village, Gurrampode^{Mandal, NalgondaDistrict.} 3 and 4^.. ol 2025

¶12

And

¶13

Butharaju Raghavendra, S/o.Venkatesham,^{Aged about 30 years,Occ'} Government Ehployee, R/o.Chandur^{Villageand lt/landal,Nalgonda Diskict.}

¶14

Smt.Butharaju Yadamma, W o.B.Venkate $ham,^{Aged about 49 years,Occ.} Agriculture Labour, R/o.Chandur Village and^{ltr'landal,NalgondaDistrict.}

¶15

Butharaju Venkatesham, Sio.B.Maraiah,^{Aged about 55} -years, OccAgriculture Labour, R/o.Chandur^{Village and Mandal, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶16

Butharaju Dilip, S/ o. Venkatesham,^{Agedaboul27 years, Occ. Student,} R/o.Chandur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda^District.

¶17

Butharaju Sandeep, S/o. Venkatesham,^{Aged about 28 years, Occ.Student,} R/o.Chandur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda^District.

¶18

.. Respondents/ Petitioner in both

¶19

6- The State of Telangana, Rep.by^{its Public Prosecutor, High Court of} Telangana, At Hyderabad. .. RespondenU Respondent

¶20

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 359⁽⁶⁾ of BNSS^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the lVlemorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the High court maybe} pleased to permit the^parties to compound the^{offences in C.C.No59212024on} the file of the specie^{JudicialFirst} class^{ftlagistrate (Prohibitionand Excise} Offence- at Nalgonda^{in the interest} of^justice.

¶22

l.A. NO: 4 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 359 (2) of BNSS praying that in the t.:ircumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the terms of compromise between the parties in C.C_No. 59212024 on the file of the Special Judicial First class lr/agistrate (p.ohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda in the interest of justice

¶24

Crl.Petition No. 3271 of 2025

¶25

Between:

¶26

'1 . Butharaju Raghavendra, S/o.Venkatesham, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Government Employee, R/o.Chandur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶27

Smt.Butharaju Yadamma, W o.B.Venkate sham, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Agriculture Labour R/o.Chandur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda [)idtrict.

¶28

Butharaju Venkatesham, S/o.B.lMaraiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agriculture Labou,, R/o.Chandur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda I)istrict.

¶29

4 Butharaju Dilip, fi/ o. Venkatesham, Aged about 27 years, ()cc. Student, R/o.Chandur Village and [/andal, Nalgonda District.

¶30

5 Butharaju Sandeep, S/o. Venkatesham, Aged about 28 years, fcb. Student, R/o.Chandur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶31

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos. 1 to 5

¶32

AND

¶33

1 The State of Telarrgana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Cour: of Telangana, At Hyderabad. .. Respondent

¶34

2 Smt.Mustipally Nandu, W o.Raghavendra, D/o.Shankar, Aged airout 23 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o.Chepur Village, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...RESPoNDENT/ DE- FAcTo COMPLAINANT

¶35

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrrm of Grounds of criminal petition, the High c)ourt may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.5g2t2o24 on the file ot the special Judicial First class [\4agistrate (Prohibition and Excise offences) at Nalgonda in the interest of justice.

¶36

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶37

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrm of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay ot all further proceedings in c.c.No.sg2t2o24 on the fiie of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (prohibition and Excise l)ffences) at Nalgonda pending dispos;al of the above Crl.p in the interest of Justice.

¶38

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Pelrtion and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Lattupally

¶39

Anand, Advocate for the petitioners in crr.petition and Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in l.A.Nos. 3 and 4 of 2O2S and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addt. pubtic Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 in crr,petition and Respondent No. 6 in r'A Nos' 3 and 4 0f 2025 and of Ms- p- KAL'ANA, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in crr.petition and petitioner in r.A.Nos. 3 and 4 0f 2025.

¶40

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶42

l.A.Nos.3 AND 4 OF 2025

¶43

ln/And CRIMINAL PETITION No.3271 OF 2025

¶44

COMMON ORDER

¶45

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short^'BNSS, 2021') seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No.592 of 2024, on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition and Excise,Offences), Nalgonda, against the petitioners.

¶46

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.'1 to 5 in the Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4, 504 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

¶47

Heard lVlr.Lattupally Anand, Iearned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public l)rosecutor, representing the respondent No.'l-State and Ms.P.Kalpana, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/de-facfo complainant.

¶48

Pending this rretition, the parties have entered into the ccmpromise and, accordingly, respondent No.2lde-facfo complainant filed l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 with the prayer to permit them to enter into compromise and by recording the settlement to quash the proceedings ;rgainst the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 5 in C.C.No.592 o'f 2024.

G^.=a

NIR,/

I.,4.Nor)^and I^{inf and} Cr/.P.No. )271 0J2025

¶53

This Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 referred the petitioners to the High Court Legal Services Committee for identification of the parties and to verify the voluntariness in arriving the settlement. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, has submitted report dated 07.03.2025 stating that the parties are identified by their respective counsel and also on verification of Aadhar Cards/ldentity Cards and the enquiries reveal that the^parties have willful and without coercion entered into settlemenUcompromise

¶54

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record.

¶55

Having considered the allegations, the charged offences, which are essentially matrimonial and^personal in nature and taking into account the amicable settlement between the^parties and to restore^peace among them, in the light of the dictums in Gian Singh v. Sfate of Punjab and anotherl and Anil Mishra v. Sfafe of IJ.P.2i State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others3, this Court is of the considered view that quashment of the impugned proceedings in view of the settlement by exercising^jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.1528 of^{BNSS, 2023,} would be in the interest of^justice.

¶56

| 2012 (1O) SCC 303

¶57

'^{2024 INSC189}

¶58

3 2019 (5) scc 688

¶59

NTR,rr

¶60

¶61

l. 1..ia.t.ia l in/ad Lrl t:Xo. )271 of 2025

¶62

¶63

Accordingly IA.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025^are allowed.^{Cr:nsequently,} alt^{proceedingsin C.C.No.592 of 2024, pending on the file ol'theSpecial} Judicial First^{Class[/agistrate (Prohibitionand ExciseOffences),} Nalgonda, are hereby quashed against the^{petitioners/acr;usedNos. l} to5

¶64

ln the above terms, the Criminal Petition^{is disposed of}

¶65

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall^{stand ;losed}

¶66

Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD DFPUTY REGISTRAR I.

//TRUE COPY//

J SECTION OFFICER

The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate⁽ Prbhibition and^Excise Offences) Nalgonda.

¶71

The Station House Officer , Women Police Station, Nalgonda.

¶72

Two CCS to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad.(OLIT)

¶73

One CC to SRl. LATTUPALLY ANAND, Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

One CC to Ms. P. KALPANA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

Two CD Copies

¶76

(Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Co.mpromise )

(

T \

tii
te

{3
': w
";

HIGH COURT

DATED:111O312O25

COMMON ORDER

I.A.Nos. 3 and 4 of 2025

¶85

ln/and

¶86

CRL.PETITION No.3271 of 2025

¶87

ALLOWING THE I.,,. NOS. 3 AND 4 OF 2025 AND DISPOSING OF'I IIE CRL.PETITION

flA 1^tt

/ ,''.s}$

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TEL,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶92

Crl.P.NoR+1 of 2025

¶93

BETWEEN:

¶94

1 ).Butharaju Raghavendra S/o,Venkatesham,

¶95

Aged about 3O years, Occ: Government Employee, R/o.Chaldur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶96

2). Smt. Butharaju Yadamma

¶97

W/o.B.Venkatesham,

¶98

Aged about 49 years, Occ: Agricultrrre Labour, R/o.Chandr.rr Village and Mandal,

¶99

Nalgond a District.

¶100

3). Butharaju Venkatesham S/o.B.Maraiah

¶101

Aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture Labour, R/o-Chandur Village and Mandal, It{elgonda District.

¶102

4).Butharaju Dilip

¶103

S/o. Venkatesham, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Student, Ry'o-Chandur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶104

5). Butharaju Sandeep

¶105

Sr/o. Venkatesham,

¶106

A,ged about 28 years, Occ: Student, R/o.Chanrllr Village a.d Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶107

--- Petitioners/ Accused No-l to 5

¶108

AND

¶109

¶110

1).The State of lelargala, Rep.by its Publ;<:^prosecutor, High Court of Telargana, At Hyderabad.

¶111

I,lespondent

¶112

2).Smt.Mustipa 15, lttra1{, Wr/o.Raghavenc r-3, D/o.Shankar, Aged about 23 lears, Occ: House Wife, R/o.Chepur Viliage, Gurrampode Mandal, Nalgonda Distri,:t.

¶113

..- Respondent/ De-facto Compiainant

¶114

JOINT MEMO

¶115

The Petir ioncrs are the Accused No.2 to ' 5 in CC.No.592 12024 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Ma;Jistrate (Prohibition and Excise Ofi'ences) at Nalgonda. Ilased on the Complaint made try tht: De-facto Complainant, the Women Police Station, NaJgonda registerecl FIR No.7T 12O24 and after completing the investigatir,n, filed the Charge against the'p-efitioners for lhe offenr'r U/sec.49B-A, 5O4 lpc and Sec.3.an<l 4 of Dp Act.

¶116

Recently rhr: matter has been settled between the parties. The De facto Complainant has decided to live .u,ith tJ.e Accused Nc.1. The De-facto Complainant agreed fhat she is ready to leacl happy marital life with the Accused l\o.1. The De-facto Cornplainant agreed that she-will not rnake arry complaint or- any petition against the Accused .n future

¶117

before any court or authority.^{From the date of entenng} into the compromise, the^{pe-facto Complainant will lead} the happy marital life wrth^{the AccusedNo'l without} causing any disturbance to conjugal^{life and familylife and} she witl not cause any^{quarrels or hindrance to the} Accused. The De-facto Complainant^{further agreed that she} will look after her in-laws well^{and decided to live with the} Accused No.1 for happy^{marital life'}

¶118

In view of the compromise^{between tlle parties' tJle De-} facto Cornplainant has no^{interest toprosecute the} Accusedarrdaccordinglyshehasnoobjectiontoallowtlre crimina]petitionandquashtheproceedingsbeforetl.r.etrial court against the Accused^{herein- Therefore, since tlre} rnatter has been settled^{between the parties'the further} proceedings before the trial^{court is abus'e of processof law} and the same is liable to^{be quashed'}

¶119

Hence this memo.

¶120

R: PEIITIONER No.l

¶121

Date: O3-O3-2O25 Hyderabad. 9 B o3o S'lf .{o PETITIONER No.2 PETITIONER^No-3 PETITIONERNo-4

¶122

lL^{S^rrl"e{} COUNSEL FOR^{THE PETITTONERS} PETITIONER No.5

¶123

r^ r-t 2"a RESPONDENT COUNSEL^{FOR THE 2"d RESPONDENT}

Butharaju Raghavendra v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Butharaju Raghavendra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aslam Bin Ismail Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Ghanshyamdas Karwa, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Omar Farooq Vs The State of Telangana

K. Loknath Vs The State of Telangana

Kowkuntla Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Fareed alias Bharkath Vs The State Of Telangana