Dhara Elizar Amrith Raj v. The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 09 Jan 2025
- Bench
- ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL
Outcome
Allowed
Consequently, this Criminal Petition is allowed and
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ss. 359(2), 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 4, 498
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 s. 3
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 arc allowed. Consequently, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 in C.C.No.5526 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, are…
Judgment
Cause title
Smt. Veemapu Swapna, Wo. Dhara Amrith Raj, Aged 32 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. Sai Sudha Residency, beside more Super Market, Pragathinagar, N/o. Hyderabad ...Respondent
Respondent
/ Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 C.C.No. 5526 of 2O21 on the file of ll AJCJ cum X Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, registered for the offences u/s 498-A lPC, 3 DPA against the petitioners/ Accused No.1 to 3. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 C.C.No. 5526 of 2O21 on the file of ll AJCJ Cum X Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, registered for the offences u/s 498-4 1PC, 3 DPA against the Petitioners / Accused No.1 to 3 herein, pending disposal of the main Orl.P. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Between: Smt..Veemlpu S-wgpna, Wo. Dhara Amrith Raj, Aged 32 years, Occ. private Employee, R/o. Sai Sudha Residency, beside rirore Supeinlark'et, Pragathinagar, N/o. Hyderabad ...Respondent
/ Defacto Complainant in l.A.No.2 & 3 ot 2O24 AND 1 2 Dhara Eizar Amrith. Raj, S/o. DRM paul Raj, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o Flat No. 201, Sai Sudha Re5idency, pragathinagir Smt Annie. Elijabeth, Wo. DRM Paul Raj, Aged 66 years, Occ. Retd Teacher, Rlo 8-5-144. Prakashnagar, Opp. prakasham StaOidm, Kothagudem B9i, S1o. D.N. Devasahayam, Aged R/o. 8-5-144, Prakashnagar, Opp 67 years, Occ. Retd Prakasham Stadium,
3. DRM Paul Employee, Kothagudem ... Respondents
/ Petitioners in I.A.No.2 & 3 ol 2O24 4. The state of _Telangana,.Represented by the pubric prosecutor High court of Telangana at Hyderabad ...Respondent
/ 1"t Respondent in l.A.No.2 & 3 of 2024 Petition under fiection 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 permit the petitioner to compound the 6ffences registered under 49g of lPC, 3 DP Act in c.c.No. 5526 of 2021 on the fite of It AJCJ cum X Metropotitan Magistrate, Kukatpally against accused No..l to 3/respondent No..l to 3 herein. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under section 359 (2) of BNSS praying that in the circumsiances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to record the above compromise and quash the c.c.No.5526 of 2021 on the file of li AJCJ cum X Metroporitan Magistrate, Kukatpafiy against accused No..l to 3/respondent No.1 to 3 herein. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri J p srikanth, Advocate for the petitioners and the Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of
Sri E parathasarathy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following Common Ord6r : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDE\/I I.A.Nos.2 and,3 of 2024 in/and CRIMINAL PETITION No.15880 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
This Crirninal Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS by the' petitioners/accused Nos. I to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.5526 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498,4' of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2 It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2, that during pendency of the present tlriminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 have been \ \ filed to record the compromise between them and to compound the offences.
Vide order dated 02.01.2025, this Court directed the parties along with their respective counsel to appear before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court I I for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, for identification and to submit a report.
Pursuant to the above said direction issued by this Court, the parties have appeared and the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, has identified the parties and submitted a report, dated 06.01.2025 and the same is placed on record.
Operative part
In view of the above, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 arc allowed. Consequently, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 3 in C.C.No.5526 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/' ASSrsrANrq: Gr?t""" / SEdTION OFFICER To, l.ThellAdditionalJuniorCivilJudge.cum-XMetropolitanMagistrateKukatpally
TheStationHouseofficer, BachupallyPS,CyberabadDistrict 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT]
4. One CC to Sri J P Srikanth, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri E Parathasarathy, Advocate [OPUCI 6. Two CD CoPies I Along with the Copy of the Joint Memo of Compromise ] {fr VA,/oh E SIA i .(' o 17 JAli M ,, '::. +_. .a. 1 J <1 HIGH COURT DATED:0910112025 COMMON ORDER l.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2024 in / and CRLP.No.15880 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE CRLP AND l.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2024 (+ r?[T,r 1
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, this Criminal Petition is allowed and
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 359(2), 528; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 4, 498; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 09 Jan 2025. The bench was ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.