The High Court · 2025

Commissionerate, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondent in lA.Nos.2 &3 ot 2025

2. Sagrole Balaji @ Surya, S/o. Madhav Rao, Age. 34 Years;, Occ. Real Estate Business, R/o. Plot No. '15lA, 5-3-346, Kamala Nagar Vanasthalipuram, Ranga. Reddy District Plot No. 383, Road No. 5 Judges Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District. N/o. Bodhan Town, Nizamabad District. Cell No. 8297301316. ...RespondenUAccused in lA.Nos.2 &3 ol 2025 Petition under Section 359(6) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner for compromise in F LR. No. 1342 of 2024, of p.S. Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Redd.y District, in terms of the accompanied compromise memo. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 359(2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the tligh Court may be pleased to compound the offences for quashing the F.l.R. No. 1342 ol 2024 of P.S. Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District, in terms of the accompanied compromise memo. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the a.guments of Sri K Venumadhav and Sri Kamtala Krishna Kalyan, Advocates for the petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecrltor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and of Sri Rajath Kumar Pradhan, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.A.Nos.2 A ND 3 0F 2025 In/And CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.4283OF202s COMMON ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 52g of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'BNSS, 2023,) seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.1342 of 2024 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the Crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 71, 318(4), 115(2), 324(4), 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ,2023 (tor sho( 'BNS, 2023').

3. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav and Mr.Kamtala Krishna Kalyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State and Mr.Rajath Kumar Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/de- facfo complainant.

4. Pending this petition, the parties have entered into the compromise and, accordingly, respondent No.2lde-facfo complainant filed l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 with the prayer to permit them to enter into compromise* and by recording the settlement to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No. l342 ot 2024. 2 NrRrr I 1.\'oi.2 dnd ) 0f2021 in/ ard {.r1. l'.No.1 28 ) oj 202 5

5. This Court vide otdil dated 26.03.2025 referred the parties to the High Court Legal Services Committee for identification and to verify the voluntariness in arriving the settlement. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, has submitted report dated 03.04.2025 stating that the parties were identified by their respective counserl and also on verification of Aadhar Cards/ldentity Cards and the encluiries revealed that the parties have willfully and without coercion entered into settlemenUcompromise 6 I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record 7 . The accusations against the petitioner/accused in the Police Report are that the petitioner/accused had developed intimacy with the respondent No.2lde-facto complainant, committed rape on the pretext that he would marry her, but later declined to marry her. Having considered the allegalions, the charged offences and the amicable settlement between the parties and to restore peace among them, in the light of the dictums in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anothe/ and Anil Mishra v. State of lJ.P.2; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi t 2012 (10) SCC 303 '] zo24 INSC 189 3 r\l R.rr I.-{-Nor.2 aad ) oJ 2025 in/atd Cr/.P.N0.128) of 2025 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.2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed. Consequently, all the proceedings in Crime No.1342 of 2024 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/accused. I ln the above terms, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRA SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The VllAdditional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyb Reddy Diskict erabad at Hayathnagar, Ranga Hyderabad (OUT) 2' The station House officer, vanastharipuram porice station, Rachakonda 3 Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state or retantana at 4 The secretary High court Legar Services commiftee, High court for the State 5 One CC to Sri K Venumadhav, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Kamtala Krishna Kalyan, Advocaie tOpUCI I 9n" 99 !o S! Rajath Kumar pradhan, Advocate [OpUC 8. Two CD Copies ofi Telangana at Hyderabad AI)K/gh \c{ Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Comprornlse I zors 1sy scc osa HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos.2 and 3 ot 2025 ln/and CRLP.No.4283 of 2025 x q o P t 0 t. .!'-,, i TtlZI D cA1P DISPOSING OF THE CRLP AND ALLOWING THE l.A.Nos.2 and 3 ot 2O25 ,-"(e\ x,' )) ,AB\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOII THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT:: HYDERABAD SA 'rjo. 2 "( Q-ozt r )\ " 1 of 2025 y*r#s IN Crl.P. No. F.I.R. No. L342 of 2024, Of P.S. Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. Between:- Sagrole Balaji @ Surya S,/o. Madhav Rao, Age:34 Years, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o. PIot No. 15/ A,5-3-346, Kamala Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy Dishict. #Plot No. 383, Road No. 5, Judges Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy Dishict. N/o. Bodhan Town, Nizamabad Dir;hict. Cell No. 8297301316. AI.JD 1). The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S. Vanasthalipuran, Rachakonda Commissionerate, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Accused. ...Respondent. 2). Sy ed Aj gari Sulthan a @ Azgar ee S ultl.rana Sy ed D / o. Syed Ali, Age:28 Years, Occ: Private Teacher., R/o. H. No.1-377/1, Chiranjeevi Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad. ...Respondent / De-facto Complainant. 2 IOINT COMI'ROMISE MEMO FILED BY THE PTiTITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT No. 2 1). It is submitted that, this quash petition is filed by the petitioner/ Accusecl praying this Hon'ble Court to quash the F.I.R. No. .1342 of 2024, of P.S. Vanasthalipuram, RachakondaL Comrnissionerate, Ranga Reddy Distlict 2). It is subn.ritted that, basing ona coml-,laint filed by the respondent No. 2 the police Vanasthalipuram, registered a F.I.R. No. 7342 of 2024, ior thc oft'ences punishable under Sr,'ction 64 of B.N.S. (Section 376 (1) (2) of I.P.C.), Section 318 (4) of B.|I.S. (Section 420 of I.P C.), Section 115 (2) of B.N.S. (Section 323 of I.P.C.), Section 324 $) of B N.S. (Sectior-r 427 ol l.P.C.), Section 238 of B.N.S. (Set:tion 201 of I.P.C.). 3). It is submitted that, the allegations in the cot:.rplaint are that, the petitioner had moved closely with the respondent No.2, promising her to malriage but did not marry, she filed a complaint with a request to take action 4). It is submitted that, the petitioner at the advice of the elders and well r'vishers got resolved the diJferences which arose between him and -1) J / J the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner and respondent No. 2 submitted an application under the Special Marriage Act, before Registrar of Marriages for getting regishation of their marriage and soon the concern Registrar of Marriages is going to register the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and will issue a marriage certificate in favour of them, as such the respondent No. 2, has no grievance at all against the petitioner, therefore she doesn't want to prosecute him, as such she has no objection for quashing of the F.I.R. against the petitioner. 5). It is submitted that, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, got reduced this joint compromise meuro and the respondent No. 2 has no objection for quashing of the F.I.R., this joint compromise memo may be heated as part and parcel of this guash petition. It is submitted that, the respondent No. Z is also filing an aJiidavit to the said effect. 6). For all the reasons stated above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the F.I.R. No. 1342 of 2024, of P.S. Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda Comrnissionerate, Ranga Reddy District, in terms of this 4 comPromise memo and to Pass such other order or orders as this I{on'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest rrf justice. W:*r*' Petitioner Date'.yl-03-2025 Placc: Hyderabad Counsel for the Petitioner. o.2 Counsel for the h,w :'dspondent No. 2.