Gumpana Harish v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased toto qr".t tn" FIR in crime No '1077 of 2025 dated 1 3/10/2025 Saroornagar P S iachakonda Ranga Reddy District against the Petitioner/Accused t.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petiiion, the High Court may be.pleased to ,tr, oi ,f f iurther proceedings including arrest of the_ Petitioner/Accused FIR in Crime No 1077 of 2025 dated fit16i2o25 Sar6ornagar P S Rachakonda Ranga Reddy Diskict pending disposal of the Criminal Petition l.A. NOs: 2 AND 3 OF 2026 Between: Mandapati Komali. D/o M.Peeraiah Aged about 27 years, O,c: Private Employee R/o. LPS Luxeres Women P.G. Sainagar, Old Hafeezpet, Ianga Reddy District N/o Madala village, Ivloppala Mandal. Guntur district. ...Petiti c rer/2nd RespondenU Compla inant AND 1 Gumpana Harish, S/o Ganga Raju, Aged about 26 years, I cc: private Employee R/o H.No. 2-34, Ramalayam Steet, K.J.Puram, K.Kothapa j r mandal, Anakapally District Erstwhile Visakhapatnam district. ...Responden /Petitio ner/Ac c u sed 2- The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor High I curt of Telangana at Hyderabad l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026 ...Respondent Petition under Section 359 (6) RA// 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crim r al Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioneri2nd respondenL[ r facto complainant to compound the offence Registered against the Respond -. rVPetitioner/Accused registered against him Under Sections 69 of BNS and Sec. 3(2)(r,, of SC /ST Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 201 5) in Crime No. 1077 of 2025 dated 13-1 ( - 1025 of Saroornagar P.S. Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District and quash the pro: redings against the RespondenUaccused herein in Crl.P No of 2026. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under Sectron 359 (2) RA/V 528 of B.N.S.S. )raying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimin ll Petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise in Crl.P.No.374 o 2025 and quash the proceedings in Crime Nb. 1077 of 2025 dated 13-10- 2025 , t Saroornagar P.S. Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District registered agains. the Respondent /petitioner/Accused Under Sections 69 of BNS and Sec. 3(2)(v) f SC /ST Act, 19Bg (Amendment Act, 201 5) This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Merr rrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri l( rdarla Siva Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veerama I r, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the R,>,pondent No.1 and Sri Y.Bala Murali, Advocate for Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO I.A.Nos.2 atrd 3 of 2o26 IN AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.374 of 2026 Datez L8.O2.2O26 Between: Gumpana Harish The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad and another Pc titione r/ Accused ANI) Respondents :: COMMON ORDER:: This Criminal Petition has becn iiled by t he pctilioner/ accused seeking to quash the proceedings ir-r F.l.R-No.l077 ol 2025 of Saroornagar Police Station, Rachakonda, registered for thc offence under Section 69 of the BNS.

#2. Heard Mr. K. Siva Prasad, learncd counsel for the pctitioner, Mr. Y. Bala Murali, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learncd Additionat Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No. l -State. 2

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submir t rd t l-rat during the pendency of lhe present Criminal Petition, at the nst:rnce of the n,ell u,ishers, relatr,",es and elders, the parties have s:tLled the dispurcs pending between them and entered into compro I isc ilnd filed .Joinr Memo. Accordingly, the parties have fited I.A.Nr s.2 and 3 oi 2026 seeking permission to compound the offences Lnd to record the compromise respectively.

#4. When this Court raised the query that wht I ter t he parties are entitled to seek rccording of a compromise atr I compounding oI heinous oflence like Section 69 of BNS. At this juncture, learnccl counsel for the par[ies relied upon the principl: laict down by the Hon'ble Apcx Court in Madhukar and othe rs vs. State of Maharashtral, wherein it was held that when 1te victim/de-facto complainant expresses that continuation of the )rosecution rvould cause further disruption to her personal life anc thtrt she does not wish to support the charges or pursue the matte- further, the Court has the power to record the compromise and comp,r rnd l.he offences.

#5. Accordingly, this Court uide order, dated 0: 02.2026, drrected the parties i.e., the petitioner and respondent No.l, to appear bcforc the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hydera tad, on or before

17.02.2026 for their identification. In compliancr, of the said order, the Secretary, I{igh Court kgal Services Commitrcr. has submitted a ' zozs li'"D,i6cy I ro 3 report, dated 12.O2.2026, stating that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were duly identified. It is further stated that the parties have wiltfully and without any coercion entered into compromise' In view of the said report and also in view of the compromise 6. entered between the petitioner and respondent No 2 as well as the submissions made by the respective parties, l A Nos'2 and 3 o[ 2026 are allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in F I.R'No lO77 of 2025 of Saroornagar Police Station, Rachakonda, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/ accused. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject lo payment 7 . of Rs. 15,O0O/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, and Rs 5,O0O/ - (Rupees five thousand onty) to the Telangana High Court Advocates' Association' Hyderabad, by the petitioner, on or before 28 02'2026'

#8. It is made clear that this order shall not be treatcd as a precedent in anY other case. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed' SD S P.C.SULEKHA DEVI STANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To

#1. The Special Sessions Judg e for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act - cum- Vtl Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2_ The station House officer, Police station Saroornagar, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District.

#3. TwoCCstoPUBL|CPRoSECUToRHighCourtfortheStateofTelangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

#4. One CC to Sri Kadarla Siva Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Y.Bala Murali, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copres (Enclosed a copy of Joint Memo) I Note: Total Amount of Rs.20,0001 (Rupees Twenty thousand c rly )has been paid by M r. K. Siva Prasad, Counsel for the Petitioner as directed by he Hon'ble Cou( vide order dated 18-02-2026 as Rs.1 5,0001 ( Rupees Fifteen thou ; rnd only ) to the "High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad" and Rs. 5,000/- Rupees Five thousand only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyde .abad and filed Memo as proof of compliance USR No.23661 of 2026 dated Z4-02-20'.t ;. BPJPSL d4i- l i ,riE S r4 ( Lrt o i r l'iB 7l]2[ \ t0 'v ' , rrGC - : ::;::--'- z C.I HIGH COURT DATED: 1810212026 \ COMMON ORDER I.A.NOS.2 AND 3 0F 2026 AND CRLP.No.374 of 2026 !.A.NOS.2 AND 3 0F 2026 AND CRIMINAL PETITION ARE ALLOWED { o\r\>s --"--'7 --rf IN T}IE HIGH COT]RT FOR TTIE STATE OF TELANGA}{A ATFTYDERABAD Crl.P.No. \)4/ /-) of2026 Betlveen: Mandapati Komali D/o M.Peeraiah Aged about 27 years, Occ: Private Fmployee fuo LPS Luxeres Women P.G. Sainagar Old Hafeezpet, Ranga Reddy District N/o Madata vitlage, MoPPala Mandal Guntur district Petitioner/ 2ndRespondent/ComP lainant I 2 And Gumpana Harish S/o Ganga Raju Aged about 26 years, Occ; private Empoyee R/o H.No. 2-34, Ramalayam Steet, K.J.Puram K.Kothapadu mandal, Anakapally District Erstwhile Visakhapatnam district. ' "Resp ondent lPetitioner/ Accused The State of Telangana rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana at Hydeiabad . . . Respondent JOINT MEMO It is submitted that on the intervention of the well wishers friends and relatives and caste elders the disputes between them were amicably sorted out. I'he memorandum of understanding on 3-l -2026 with both the parties reduced into writing with terms and conditions and both the parties are accepted the understanding and in view of permanent settlement they shatl not make any claim whatever for any amounts or M I initiate any proceedings civil or crinrinal since th,r 3 are no claims outstanding and all claims have been fully and finalll ,r xlled and destroy the entire evidences of any proofs and other ;'oofs or photos unconditionallv and further they shall not use the phor. s if any found ir-r future days either in r,,,hatssapp, facebook instagram ,r,, for both parties better future. She l-rave withdrawn all the cases reg i tered against the Accused and she is not interested to prosecute the said Crime No. 10,7712025 daled 13-10-2025 of Saroomagar P.S. I.r chakonda, Ranga Ileddy District rcgistered against the Accused .l'lx elders and well- rvishers and caste people settle the disputes amir z :ly between the respondent and petitioner /accused to settle the lives r f accused and 2od respondent rvith their individuality. I have no intere s to prosecute the above Criminal case against the petitioner/Accused re; stered against the petitioner/Accled Under Sections 69 of BNS and Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC /ST Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015) The said criminal pr rceedings may be quashed in the interests ofjustice. It is subrnitted that the petitioner/2nd respond: rt have amicably settled the dispute at the intervention of elders and lell wishers and friends and caste elders the matter has been comprom r :d between them. a'Q19 Irv\ P.S Hence the both parties came to compromise in the above Crl.p.No. 2026 aganst Crime No 1077 of2O25 dated, 13 -10-2026 of Saroomagar Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District registered against the respondent /Accused Under Sections 69 of BNS and Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC /ST Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015) and both the parties have no craims or rights against each other in future and the 1,, accused and 2nd respondent are lived their individual lifb and no authority to each o them. q u""yA Respondent_/petitioner/Accused H Petitioner/ Respondent No. 2 Defacto complainant Counsel for Respondent/petitioner/Accused Counsel for Petitioner/ Respondent No. 2 Defacto complainant