The High Court · 2025

4. Mr. Divakar Ra.iu, S/o. S. Doraiswamy Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 901, Block No.9, My Home Krushi, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, ...Respondent Nos.2 to 4/Accused Nos.1 to 3 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 FIR No. 70 of 2025 of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad against the Accused Nos.1 to 3. -t;' l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Smt Yalamala Bhavani, Employee, R/o. Street Begumpet, Hyderabad. Wo. N o.7, Shiv Kumar, Aged 2.0 yea.s, Ctcc near Hanuman terrple, Prakash Private N agar, AND ..PetitioneriPetitioner '1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Hrgh ,Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

2. Smt Mun vara Naveena, Wo. Divakar Ralu, Aged 30 years, Occ. t{ousewife, R/o 901, Block No.9, My Home Krushi, Gachibowli, Hl,derabad.

3. Smt Munivara Lakshmi Devi, Wo. Nagaraju Munivara, Aged 4g years. Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No 8,5, J P Homes, Saroornagar. (..hfnthalak'unta, Ranga Reddy, Telangana - 500074

4. Mr Divakar Ra;u, S/o. S. Doraiswamy Aged about 39 years, Occ. Elusiness, R/o 901, Block No.9, [\/y Home Krushi, Gachibowti. HyCerabad, ...Respondents/ Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiorr. the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner/De-facto Complainz: nt to compound the offence with the Respondent Nos.2 to 4/Accused Nos 1 to 3 by allowing the present criminal petition by quashing proceedings in Fl:l No. 7O t-tf 2O2E of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Smt Yalarnala Bhavani, Employee, R/o. Street Begumpet Hyderabad. Wo. No.7, Shiv Kumar, Aged 4:) years, Occ near Hanuman ten ple, Prakash Private Nagar, AND ...Petitioner I lhe Stqtg cf Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Terlangana, At Hyderabad.

2. Smt Munivara Naveena, Wo. Divakar Raju, Aged 30 y:_,ars, Occ. l-rousewife, R/o. 90'1 , Etlock No.9, My Home Krushi, Gachibowli, Hyrlerabad. . . . ResporrdenUCom p lainant cW

3. Smt fvlunivara Lakshmi Devi, Wo. Nagaraju l\rlunivara, Aged 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.85, J.P Homes, Saroornagar, Chinthalakunta, Ranga Reddy, Telangana - 500074.

4. [Vlr. Divakar Raju, S/o. S Doraiswamy Aged about 39 years, Occ Business, R/o. 901, Block No.9, My Home Krushi, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, ...Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 3 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petltion, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise entered into by the parties and quash the proceedings in FIR No. 70 o'f 2025 of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Syed Arif Basha, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and Sri V.N.R.Chaitanya, for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER -. .!t--:,{., THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJI l.A.Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2025 ln/And CRIMINAL PETITION No.3109 OF:?025 COMMON ORDER This tlriminal Petition under Section 528 o1' Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') a:rd the lnterlocutory Applications are filed by the petitioner/de-facfo cc)mplainant with the prayer to permit them to enter into compromise ar,d by recording the settlenrent t,r quash the proceedings against the rr,rspondent Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos l to 3 in Crime No.70 of 2025

2. The rerspondent Nos.2 to 4 are arraydd as acr.;used Nos.'l to 3 in the Crime registered for the offences punishable uncier Sections 118(1), 79 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2()23 (for short 8NS,2023') and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Schedul::d Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 'l 989

3. Heard IMr.Syed Arif Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner/ de-facto complainant, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No l -State and Mr.V.N R Ch;ritanya, learned counsel for the resoondent Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos l to 3

4. This C,turt vide order dated 04.03 2025 referre,l the parties to the High Court Legal Services Ccmmittee for identifrcation ancl to verify the l t 2 \ ltt./ l. 1..\t'.) trti ) oy )(.)!i - :tf,uri (.1.P.\ o. )109 o1 )l)2i voluntariness in arriving the settlement. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, has submitted report dated 12.03.2025 stating that the parties were identified by their respective counsel and also on verification of Aadhar Cards/ldentity Cards and the enquiries revealed that the parties have willfully and without coercion entered into settlemenUcomprom ise

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

6. Having considered that the criminal petition is itself fited by the de-facto complainant, the nature of charged offences and taking into account the amicable settlement between the parties and to restore peace between the parties, in the light of the dictums in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherl and Anit Mishra y. Sfate of tJ.p.2; 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.t52B of BNSS, 2023, would be in the interest of justice.

7. Accordingly, l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed Consequenfly, all the proceedings in Crime No.70 of 2025 of Raidurgam Police Station, | 2012 (10) scc 303 '/ 2024 INSC 189 3 zots qs; scc 088 ._-3#- { 3 \IR. / I 1 ', ".! .tt l )u1 )025 . itf a (.'11'.\0.)109 ol 2025 Cyberabad rlommissionerate, are hereby quashed against the respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.1 to 3. B. ln the above terms, the Crrminal Petition is dispor;ed of Pending mlscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed' SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASI;ISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/' sec$&-orrrcen To, 1 TheXlllJudicialMagistrateofFirstClassRangareddy)istrictat ?f,f 8?if; : ;t'i:use orricer, Raidursam Police station o vberabad rwo ccs to the Public Pt"t;:;i;;:Fiidn c-o"t rot the sit;te of relangana at

2. 3 4 5 t) Hvclerabad IOUT] 3:: 33 l3 3t i;h'#'.3n1?;T;":":itJiJ",?, . Two CD CoPies rfi- NVB/PSt, Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromtse I , I I t I HIGH COURT DATED:1710312025 COMMON ORDER I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 ln/and CRLP.No.3109 of 2025 iHE i IA' t: 1E SEP zffi \ ( I a ",/ -l ir /') \\? DISPOSING OF THE CRLP AND ALLOWING THE !A Nos.2 & 3 OF 2025 ( A- l1tl- l 6\/ f}!€w ':,i&it l#*e i I I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD I l i l l Between: Mrs. Yalamala Bhavani, I.A. No. of 2025 Crl.P. No. of 2O25 Aged 40 years, Occ: pii?ate Employee, R/o. Street No.7, near'Hanuman temple, Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 1 And The State of Tehngana, Rep. by the Public prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad. rl

2. Mrs. Munivara Naveena, W/o. Divakar Raju, Aged 30 years, Ocg: Housewife, R/o. #901, Block No19, My Home Krushi, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. 3. Mrs. Munivara Lakshmi Devi, ffo. Nagaraju Munivara, Aged 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 85, J.p Homes, Saroornagar, Chinthalakunta, Ranga Reddy, Telangana _ 5OOO74.

4. Mr. Divakar Raju, S/o. S. Doraiswamy Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. #901, Block No.9, My Home Krushi, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Defacto Complainant Respondent No.1/ Respondent No.1/ Complainant ..Respondent Nos. 2 to 4/ Respondent Nos. 2 to 4/ Accused Nos.1 to 3 f 1 ]OINT MEMO It is submitted that the Petitioner/De-facto Complainant along with the Respondent Nos.2 to 4/Accused Nos.1 to 3 is filing the present Joint Memo to <:ompound the offences and compromise with the Respondent Nos.2 to 4/ Accused Nos,1 to 3 as the dispute between them is settled out of Court amicably, at the intervention of their well-wishers. In view of said settlement, the Petitioner/De-facto Complainant doi:s not want to proceed with the case again:;t the accused any more. Hence it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be p eased to permit the Petitioner/De-facto Complainant to compound the offences and compromise with the Respondent Nos.2 to 4/ Accused Nos.1 to 3 by allowing the Crimin;:l Petition by quashing FIR No. 70 of 2025 of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad againsi. the Accused and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem 'it and proper in the circumstances of the case. Place: Hyderabad Date: 1ffi2.2025 Petitione -facto 0omplainant Counsel for Petitioner/De-Facto Complainant ,/./\. c,', i2:,/al.-') :' Respo n ent No.2/Accused No.1 Respondent No.3/Accused No.2 5,.D Respondent No. Accused No.3 4=- Counsel for Respondent No.2/Accused