The High Court · 2025

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between Pooja, D/o.Srinivas, Aged about 21, Occ. Houme wife, Rl/o.H.No 20-861299, KK N asa r' P ha se I r' G a n d a msudgu FX[qii,;[SSiSlB?'^!+,BE[[l ro c o M p LAr N AN r AND community Harll Narsnigi' cyberabad '1 . Vislavath Ravi, S/o Laxman, Aged about 24 Years, Occ.lvlason, R/o.Near SC ...lsr pARTy/AccusED 2 rhe State of reransana, Rep by Pubric t,.::.:fiE8F5iuB."^?i[3#JflX,ilffl, Petition under Section 320 (6) Read with Sec. 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit and Joint Memo of Compromise filed therewith, the High Oourt may be pleased to record the compromise for quashing SC.No. 890 of 2020 on the file of the Hon'ble Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. The case was registered under Sections 354-D, 354, 387, 506 of the IPC and Sections 11 RAIV '12 of the POCSO Act. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Maram Anil Kumar ,Advocate for the Petitioner both Crl.p and l.A.No.2 of 2025 and Respondent No.'l in LA.No.3 of 2025 and Sri N.Krishna Sumanth, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in Cd.p and LA.No.2 of 2025 and Petitioner in l.A.No.3 of 2025 and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2. in Crl.p and in both l.As The Court made the following: ORDER I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.A.Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2025 ln/And CRIMI NAL PETITION No. 1393 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.B90 of 2020, on the file of the Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in the Sessions Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 354,387,506 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 'l 1 read with Section 12 of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 (for short 'POCSO Act').

3. Heard Mr.M.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, fi/lr.N.Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.'1lde-facfo complainant and IVlr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing lhe respondent No.2-State.

4. Pending this petition, the parties have entered into the compromise and, accordingly, respondent No 2/de-faclo complainant filed l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 with the prayer to permit them to enter into compr0mise 2 a

1...1.N0.'.! u )ol 2025 iz/ anl Cr/.P.No.l )9) 0J 2025 and by recording the setflement to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.C.No.B90 of 2020

5. This court vide ordet dated 04.03.2025 referred the parties to the High court Legar Services committee for identification and to verify the voluntariness in arriving the setflement. The secretary, High court Legar services committee, has submitted report dated 11.03.2o2s stating that the parties were identified by their respective counser and arso on verification of Aadhar cards/rdentity cards and the enquiries reveared that the parties have willfully and without coercion entered into settlemenUcompromise. t) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record

7. The accusations against the petitioner in the porice Report rodged by the victim girr are that, the petitioner/accused assaurted the victim girr with intent to outrage her modesty, starked her under the guise of rove and committed extortion with criminar intimidation. Having considered the allegations and taking into account the amicable setflement between the parties, in the right of the dictums in Gian Singh v. state of punjab and _ another,l and Anit Mishra v. Sfafe of tJ.p.2; State of Madhya pradesh ' 2o1z (1o) scc 303 2 2024 Iltsc t89 I I ; t I I i .1 3 \,11t,/ l. '1.1x'0i.2 an,l ) t1 202 5 ir/ rtrd 01.l'.N0./ )9.) ri 202:t v. Laxmi Narayan and others3, this Court is of the consldered view that quashment of the impugned proceedings in view of the setflement by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.p.C.l52B of BNSS, 2023, would be in the interest of justice B Accordingly, l.A Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed. Consequenfly, all the proceedrngs in S.C No Bg0 ot 2020, pending on the file of the Special Judge for Expeditlous Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/accused. 9 ln the above terms, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, Ranga Reddy District at Raiendranagar. '1 . The Special Judge forTrial and Disposal of Rapeand POCSO Act cases, 2. TheStation House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad 3. One CC to Sri lrrl.AnilKumar , Advocate (OPUC) 4. One CC to Sri N.Krishna Sumanth,Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad.(OUT) (along with a copy of Joint Memo) YY ' 2019 (5) scc 688 1 HIGH COURT NTRJ DATED:17l03/2021i ORDER l.A.No.2&3 ol 2025 ln/and GRLP.No.1393 ol 2025 q J o 1HE STa I4: 27 JlJt'l 2M I o cTA. E\) (. a Allowing the l.As and Disposing of the Crl.P. q.u@ Vt- - ---fr\42 Z; MtrMORANDUM O FILED UNDER SECTION +8€ OF I F CRIMINAL PETITION 3sg rD c1^ Br,t4 ODE IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDI CATURE: AT HYDERABAD For The State of Telangana CRL.P. No. oF 2025 sc.r,ro. ssol,llzozo """$$T3;"J1*TALAND POCSO ACT CASES) DrsposAL oF RAPE AND (rHE SPL.JUDGE F.oR Between: Between: Vislavath Ravi, S/o.Laxman, Aged about 24 years, Occ.Mason, R/o.Near SC Community HaIl, Narsnigi, Cyberabad. .. Petitioner/Accused. LP.-"J3, D_/-o.Srinivas, Ag"d "b.rtl]l: I/o.H.No.2O-86 / 299, KK Nagar, phase Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District. Occ. Housewife, II, Gandamguda, . . . Respondent/ De factoComplainalt The State of Telangana, ?. Rep by Public prosecutoi,-High Cour.t Buildings, Hyderabad, Station House O{Iice, p.S.Nar1ingi. . .. Respondent/Complainant . MEMORANDUM OF JOINT COIVIPROMISE MEMO FILDD BY THE PARTIES

1. I submit that I am the defacto complainarrt in the above case and -t. the lstrespondbnt as such I am well aware of the facts of the case. 2. I submit that the petitioner. filed a quash petition praying this Honble Court to quash SC.No. g90 of 2O2O on the file of the Hon,trle special Judge for Trial and Disposar of Rape and pocso Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranzrgar. The case was registered under &4- ?roi*4 I t 2 Sections 354-D, 354, 382, 506 of the IpC and Sections 11 R/W 12 of the POCSO Act, in which petitioners ale accused 3. Botle pa.rties have resolved their issues ald have come to a consensus an ct decided to live their lives happily in their matrimony life 4. Both parties have resolved their financial disputes and made payment to the father of the lst respondent_ Wh:rtever transpired between them previously was of their own free wilt, without any undue influence, coercion, or inducement by one party upon the other. 5. Bottr parties respectfully submit that the present complaint was filed by the second party due to a misunderstanding. As the issues have now been amicably resolved, bottr parties have mutually agreed to live their lives peacefully without interfering with each other in any malner. and respondent no-1 have It is submitted that the petitioner resolved their issue and entered into an amicable settlement at the intervention of elders and well_wishers of both of us and to this effect, a separate compromise petition is also filed. Hence this joint memo. Peti .tr+ Counsel for the petitioner Hyderabad Date: -Ol-2O25 ?oo5o'4 Respondernt No- l \-o r the Respondent No- 1