The High Court · 2025

The State o'Tel;lngana, Rep by its Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Tel,lngana At Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Petition unrler {iection 359(6) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlenrorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the H igh court may be pleased to perrnit the Respondent No.2/Defacto complainant to compound the offences under Section 294 (b), 324, 427, rtw 34 tpC, Sec 3 (i ) (1) (s) 3 (2) (v a) of SC and STs (POA) Amendment Act2015, in SC.SpL'No. ZZS of ZbZe, on tne file of Court of S,tecial Judge For Trial of Cases Under SCs/STr; (pOA) ACT, 1989-cuM-lll Add . Dir;trict and sessions Judge, Karimnagar againr;t ihe Accused No.B. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021i Petition unc er Siection 359(2) of BNSS praying that in the ,rircumstances stated in the Merrorardum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may bd pleased to re( orc the compromise entered between the petitio n e r/Defacto complaianant anc Respondent/Accused No.B and euash the proceedings by compounding the rrnder Section 294 (b),324, 421 , r/w 34 lpC, Sec 3 (1) (r) (s,) e (2) (v a) of SC ard s'rs (PoA) Amendment Acr2015, against ftre iesponbenv Accused No.8 in sic.sPL No. 22s of 2023, on the file of bourt of r3pecial Judge For Trial of cases Under scs/srs (poA) ACT, 1989-cuM-lll Adclt. District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. This Petitiorr co ning on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of _ Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of llri B. vikram, Advocate for the F'etitirrner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Adriitional public Prosecutor on betralf of the Respondent No.1 and of Ms. Vanaprarthi Vaishali, Advocate for the R ndent No2.. =spc The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.A.Nos.1 AND 2 OF 2025 ln/And CRIMINAL PETITION No.3792 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings in SPL. S.C. No.225 of 2023, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989- cum-lll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, against the petitioner

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.B in the Special Sessions Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b),324, 427 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1XrXs), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

3. Heard tVlr.B.Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor; representing the respondent No.1-State and [\tls.Vanaparthi Vaishali, learned counsel for the respondent No.2l de-facto complainant

4. Pending this petition, the parties have entered into the compromise and, accordingly, respondent No.2/de-facfo complainant filed l.A.Nos.1 I b- . and Z of 2025 with the prayer to permit them to enter into compromise 2 NIRJ r.-,/..\,.r. / drd 2 ol'2025 ir/and {.r, P i\0.1t92 oJ 2025 and by record ng lhe settlement to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accu sed in Spl.S.C.No.225 of 2023

5. This Cotrrt '/ide order daled 17.03.2025 refered the parties to the High Court Ler;al {iervices Committee for identification and to verify the voluntariness irr ar'rivrng the settlement. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Comrnittee, has submitted report dated 21 .03.2025 stating that the parties wr:re identified by their respective counsel and also on i verification of Aadhar Cards/ldentity Cards and the enquirir>s revealed that the partres have willfully and without coercion e.rtered into settlemenUcon prornise

6. I have c;ons dered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the m:rteriirls on record

7. The accrrsations against the petitioner/accused No.B irr the Police Report are thzrt, the petitioner/accused No.8 and other ac<;used were attacked on th,-, respondent No.2/de-facfo complainant and rtthers, who belong to SC Comrrunity, and beat them with sticks, hands and stones by abusing them on their caste and they also damaged a nrotor cycle. Having considered the allegations, the nature of charged offences and - taking into accrunl the amicable settlement between the parlies, in the ) NT&/ I-4.N0t.1 and 2 0J 2025 in/and Cn|.PN03792 o-f 2025 light of the dictums in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherl and Anit Mishra v. State of u.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.

8. Accordingly, l.A.Nos.1 and 2 o'f 2025 are allowed. Consequently, r' all the proceedings in Spl.S.C No.225 of 2023, pending on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-lll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/accused No.8

9. ln the above terms, the Criminal Petition is disposed of Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed &oV(to) 3cL7o3 2DY1 ANSc. 8q )rl'r$) |c-c- eet SD/.S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, ECTION OFFICER 1 . The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (pOA) Act, .l gB9 cum lll 2. The Station House Officer, Yellareddypet Police Station, Rajanna Siricilla Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. District.

3. Two CCs.to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad[OUT]

4. One CC to Sri B. Vikram, Advocate TOPUCI 5. One CC to Ms. Vanaparthi Vaishali, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies (along with a copy of memo of compromise) HIGH GOUFIT DATED:01 10412025 , COMMON ORDER I.A.NOS.1 AND 2 0F 2025 IN/AND CRLP.No.3i'92 of 2025 ( q f, o -flL: __. 1; r-lr )-l {ts 19 N'r iffi :)l t DESI',: J (-t . ,'t DISPOSING OF THE CRL.P. rNv il5 $ q MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL PETITION (FTLED U / 5.482 OF CR.PC.) IN THE HIGH COURTFORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA r-+T HYDERABAD {r+- 6 -}"EMo-USRJIo. Y IN CRLp. No. 311;- INi S.C.SPL.No. 225 OF 20ZZ (On the file of Court of Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under Scs/STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-III Addl.District & Sessions ]udge,Karimnagar) oF2o2s OFzozs BETWEEN: P Gaddi Raju @ Raju Yadav, S/o.Komuraia[ Agedft years, Caste:Yadav/ Golla" Occ:Welder & Agticulture, R/o.H.No.4-72, Almaspur VillageJellareddypet Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District .. Petitioner/Accused No.8 1 2 AND The State of Telangana Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad. Munige Narsaiah S/ o.Rajaiah, Aged 50 years. Caste: SC ( Madiga ), Occ:Mansorl R/o. Ambedkarnagar,Almaspur Village, Yellareddypet Mandal, RaiannasircillaDistrict' . . . Respondent I ...Respondent f De-factocomplainant '.Ll lr,[l- r-1.1 .66) OINT M 1I\4{) FILED BY PETITIONERS AND 2",r RES PONDENT I

1. This Joint M,l rrorandum of Compromise is executbd between the Defacto Ccunplainant/Respondent No 2 herein end the Petitione rs/Accused No.8 in respect of SC SPL No' 225 of 2C23' on the file of On the file of Court of Special Judge For Trial oI Cases Under Scs/STs (P()A) ACT, 1989-CUM-III AddlDistrict & Sessions Judge,Kar trnrutgar p 2 It is hur'et 11' submitted that the Petitioners herein are the Aci:used No'8 and Rcsp,rncle nt No.2 is the Defacto Complainant in SC-SPL' No' 225 of 2023. It is su:mitted that the Petitioner and Respondent Nc' 2/Defacto Complaia nt lrr:rein are coming from the same village and n'itl r tl-Le advice of the e[<]:rs c f the village, comrnon friends and relativcs' th: Pctitioner and thcR:sponclent No.2/Defacto Complainant had agreccl to close the case and live Ln peace and harmony' 3 It is I Lumblr' submitted that the Respondent N r'2/Defacto Ccompla inart does not wish to Prosecute the case any further against the Pt:ti liont:r/Accused No 8 herein and in view o1i the mutual agreenlent compromise which they have agreed' the Respondent No.2/Dt:factr Complainant agreed to withdraw the case and close to enable t renr to have cordial relationships hereafter al-rd also to have a healthy rtrrLosphere irr the village and in the interest of thc Petitiner and ^ ..?- t r'/ t /sQ) tilJ.X 1u {-,; r,$o'Y n i Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant as well as 'the village community at large 4 It is submitted that Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 had entered into the compromise and settled all the disputes arnicably, peacefuliy in the interest of one another and also in the inierest of the village comrnunity at large. There is no coercion, undue influence or force in entering this compromise and all the parties unequivocally declare that they had entered into this comproririie out of their own free and consent and to p settle all the disputes to enable all the parties to concentrate on living peacefu[.life. i It is therefore prayed that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise between the Petitioner/ Accused No.B and Respondent No. 2/Defacto Complainant and quash the proceedings against the Accused No.S, in SC.SPL No. 225 of 202i, on the file of On the file of Court of Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under Scs/STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-III Addl.District & Sessions judge,Karimnagar, and pass such . other order or orders as this Hon,ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Hence This Memo rrr,bt'fu'n \-f $p U1 6, 'ttn' Gaddi Raju @ Rnju '(adav, S/o.Kbmuraiah, Petitioner/Accu :;ed l,lo.8 rqF$)D,J,-$ Munige Narsaiah Respondent No lD,:facto Complainant T Petitioner/ Acr used No.8 , el for the Respondent No.2