I'he llon'ble Supreme Courl in Hiteslt Verma v. State of Llttarukhantlt specificalty held that the essential ingredients of an ol

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to compound the offences in Crime No. 191 of 2016 of Chikkadpally Police Station Hyderabad in W.P No. 17219 of 20'16, pending before this Hon'ble Court and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. N .PRAMOD Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 3: SRI B. SRIDHAR AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No 4: MS TANU SRI REP SRI ANURUDH REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER I l THE HON'BLE S RI JUSTICE J. SIT.EENIVAS RAO I.A.No.l of 2025 in/and WRIT PETITION No.l72l9 of 2016 ORDER This u,rit pctition has becn filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.l9l of 2016 on the tile oithe Clhikkadapally Police Station. Hyderabad, wherein the pctitioncr was anayed as accused lor the offences punishable under Section 506 of the lndian Pcnal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC') and Scctions 3(l)(r)(s) of thc Schedulcd Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (lor sho( 'SC/ST (POA) Act)

2. Heard Mr.N.Pramod, learncd counsel for the pctitioner, Mr.B.Sridhar, learned Assistant Governt.nent Pleader lor Home appearing for rcspondent Nos.l to 3 and Ms.Tanu Sri. leamed counsel representing Mr.Anurudh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pctitioner, while discharging his duties as Chainnan of the A.P. House Federation, has not committed any offence or irregularity. He further submitted that respondent No.4, who was the Managing Director of the A.P. House Federation, lodged a complaint on2l .04.2016 making 2 false allegations. even though the petitioner never abused respondent No.4 in the name of his castc. Even according to the allegations rnade in lhc conrplaint. tlre allegcd incident took place within the four rvalls ol'the olllce. arrd no other persors were present at the time o1' the allegcd otlcnce. II:ncc. the ingrcdients of thc alleged ofi'ences arc not attractcd a,,ainst thc pctitioncr. Hc further submitted that, during the pcndency oi' the r.r,r'it petition, the tenui-e of the petitioner was courpletecl and res;rondent No.4 also retired lrom service on attaining tlie age of superannuation. Subsequently, at the instance of well- .'r,ishers and clders. the petitioner and respondent No.4 entered into a conrpronrisc and filed a.ioint memo and I.A.No.l of 2025, seeking to compound the oft-ences alleged against the petitioner. In the said luremo. rcspondent No.4 speciflcally stated that he has no interest to prosecute the czrse against the petitioner. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings a.sainst the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law

4. Lcarned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that rcspondent No.4 is not having interest to prosecute the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. IJaving considered the rival submissions made by the respective pafties and after perusal of the material available on i I I 3 record, it reveals that the allegation against the petitioner, that he abused respondent No.4 within the fbur walls of the office, does not indioate that any member of the public was present at the timc of the allcged incident

6. I'he llon'ble Supreme Courl in Hiteslt Verma v. State of Llttarukhantlt specificalty held that the essential ingredients of an olfence under the SC/SI' (POA) Act, namely that the alleged abusive words were uttered "in any place within public view," rvas not salislled where the incident occumed within thc four walls of a building and no member of the public was present. Hence, the initiation of proceedings for the offences under Section SC/ST (POA) Act is a clear abuse of process of law 7 . ln Kontle Nageshwar Rao v. A. Srirama Chandra Murty arul unothey', the Hon'ble Apex Courl reiterated the very same principle.

8. l'he record lurther discloses that respondent No.4 filed I.A.No. I of 2025 to compound the offences against the petitioner and both the parties fited joint memo 9 . Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh ' (2020) ro scc 7 ro 2 Crirninal Appeal No.555 of 2018 4 Vermu and Konde Nageshwar Rao (supra) and also joint memo filed b1 both the parlies. proceedings in F-tR No.19l of 2016 on the file ol thc Chikkadapalll Policc Station, Ilyderabad. againsr the petitioncr/ accused arc liable to be quashcd.

10. Accoldinglr. I.A.No. t of 2025 is allori,cd. Consequently. the lrrit pctition is al|rricd and the proceedings in IrIR No. 191 of 2016 on the file ol the Chikkadapally Police Station. Hyderabad, against thc petitioner laccLrscd arc hcrcby quashed Pcnding miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. B.REKHA RANI SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 't ,ii To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Deparment of Home Secretariat, State of Telengana, Hyderabad

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chikadpally, Hyderabad J.

7. The SHO, Chikadpally Police Station,. Chikadpally, Hyderabad. One CC to SRl. N. PRAMOD, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to SRI ANURUDH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies DAN PSK HIGH COURT DATED:0711112025 ORDER IF rt)Q.1o? zo4r rrv\RrvD WP.No.17219 of 2016 ( * lHE S i;il a u^. 1t: 2 j,, i! 1 B tlAR 2026 * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \0 ,6d YL- {e@