The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

2. Smt. Sana Begum, W/o. Mohd.Afzal, Age - 26 years. D/o.Mohd.Kamruddin, occ - Housewife, R/o.H.t,lo.8-109, Narsinghi Mllage, Puppalaguda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant 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 c.c.No.97zl2o24 on the file of the il Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Rarrga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. LA. NO:2 OF 2025 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying thar in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petitio r, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in c.c.Nc .g72tz0:24 on the file of the lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Flanga Reddy District at Rajendranagar pending disposal of the above Crl.p. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Sana Be.gun1.W./9, !o-h!.,{zat, Age - 2€ years. D/o.Mohd.Kamnrddin, occ - Hqusewife, R/o.H.No.8-109, Narsinghi Mtlage, ]uppal.guAa MindJi, ' Ranga Reddy District. ..'Petitioner Respondent No.2lDe-facto complainant irr lA.Nos.3 and 4 ol 2o2s AND t Vgt!. Afzal, S/o. Mohd... Babu lrt,y"-. lg"q about 37 years, Occ_ Business, Babu Miya tUanil, nigtir6n-,irJ R/o.H.No_1-11 1/1/C, p.NoI34-C, -Mohd' cotony, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District. R/o. H.No.'1 - 1 1 I tBt 126, WlF tto. I 2OB, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Md, Gilani Bg.gum, Wo.-M.9hd.Babu Miya, Aged abcur 56 years, Occ_ House lAfrfe, Rl/o.H.No.1-112t12, Weeker Seaion Citony, t<onOapui iiang; ffi;t District. 3. Md. Ahmed, S/o. Mohd. .Babu Miya Aged about 3r) years, Occ_ Business, Manzi t,'Cagh'a;."dra C.b;y: + ly"*9, Begum, Wo.Md4hm.ed,.Aged about 36 y,_.615, Occ_ House Wife, R/o.l'l.No. 1-1 1 1 /8{26, ryel No. 1 268, Babu Maniii, nigh"u"niir-C"ioni, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District. 5. !t9._4:gS{ S/o.Md.Babu {iy-a,_Aggd about 35 years, Occ_ Business, ry" P.ryg 39.1-q, First Ftoor, B.A.Residency, Ragtravehaii-Cofoni, x;A.af,;;, Ranga Reddy District. -Aabu

6. Srnt. Sana Bcgum, Wo,.Mo-h!.{z,at, Age - 2Q years. D/o.Mohd.Kamruddin, qcc - Hqusewife, R/o.H.No.B-109, Narsinghi Mtiage, Fuppilag;d; M;il| ' Ranga Reddy District. ...Respondents/petitioners in lA.Nos.3 and 4 oj 2O2S Z J!,e ltate of Telangana, Rep.by its public proseotor, High Court of I elangana, At Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondent in lA.Nos.3 and 4 ol 2O2S Petition under Section of 359(6) BNSS praying that in the ckcumstances stated in ttire Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Oourt may be pleased to permit the parties to oonpound the offences in C.C.No.972l2O24 on the file of the lll Additional Judicial Magisirate of First Class, Ranga Reddy Diskict at Rajendranagar. l.A. NO: 4OF 2025 Petition under Section 359 (2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the terms of mmpromise between the parties in C.C.No.972l2024 on the file of the lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. This Petition corning on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Syed Yakob, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Laftupally Anand, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON OROER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TU}GRAMJI l.A.Nos.3 AND4 OF 2425 ln/And CRIMINAL PETITION No. 20F ?025 MMON ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Sectiorr 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O23 (for short 'BNSS, 2023'), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners,accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.972 ot 2024 on the file of the lll Additional .tudicial Magistrateof First Class, Ranga Reddy Diskict at Rajendranagar.

2. The petitioners are anayed as accused Nos.1 lo 6 in the aforesaid C.C. which was taken cognizance for the offencet; punishable under Sections 498-4 and 506 of the lndian Penal Code, 1{}60, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1.961.

3. Heard Mr.Syed Yakob, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State and Mr.Lattupally Anand, learned counsel for respondent No.2rUe-facto complainant.

4. Pending this petition, the parties have entered irrto the compromise and, accordingly, they moved l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 202!i with the prayer to permit them to enter into compromise and by recordir g the settleme6t (o- quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accu;r:d Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.972 of 2024. 2

5. This Court vide order, dated 04.07.2025 refened the parties to the High Court Legal Services Committee for identification and to verify the voluntariness in aniving the settlement. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Crcmmittee, has submitted report, dated 18.07.2025 stating that the parties were identified by their respective counsel and also on verification of Aadhar CardVldentity Cards and the enquiries 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. Having considered the allegations, the charged offences, which are essentially matrimonial and inter-personal in nature and taking into account the amicable settlement between the parties and to restore peace among them, in the light of the dictums in Ghn Singh v. Sta(e of Punjab and anothert and Anit Mishra v. Sfafe 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.l528 ot jNSS, 2023, would be in the interest of justice I 2012 (10) scc 303 2 2o2q INSc r89 3 zors 1s1 scc oaa 3

8. Accordingty, l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2O2S are allorved. Consequenfly, all proceedings against the petitioners,/accr.rsed Nos..r to 6 in c.c.No.g72 of 2024 0n the fire of the [t Additionar Judiciar Mag strateof First crass, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar, are hereby quashed. q ln the above terms, the Crirninal petition is disp<>sed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dosed. SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) ,/TRUE COPY// s"TION OFFICER To, Rajendranagar 1 The lll Additionar Judiciar Magistrate of First crass, Ranga Reddy District at . The S^t-ation House Officer, Narsingi police Station, Cyberabad. 2 . Two CCs to the pubtic erosecuior]High C;,rilih;titi-Jr-ietangana at 3 Hyderabad tOUTl . th" 99 to 'Sri . one CC to Sri Laftupaily nnbno, Aav-ocaG IOEUct . Two CD Copies Syea yakob, Advocate [OpUCl 4 5 6 NVB/PSL (Joint Memo is enclosed herewith) Y{ HIGH COURT DATED:251071202s ( COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos.3 AND 4 OF ZOZ1 ln/And GRLP.No.5632 of 20ZS ,',,,.1 / I i \.', \ ii{E s74 2o roy sFAtctrED ($ illI o +{ * DISPOSING THE CRLP AND ALLOWIITIG THE l.A.Nos.3&4OF2025 ,*@q$, '\o. 'i 'i I I I I , i ,i IN THE HIGI{ COURT OF TELANGANA AT FTYDERABAD Crl.P-No. of 2O25 AE-TWEEN: 1). Mohd.Afzal S/o.Mohd. Babu Miya, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 1-1 Lt / t/C, p.No.434-C, Mohd Babu Miya Manzil, Raghavendra Colony, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District. 2).Md.cilani Begum W/o.Mohd,Babu Miya, Aged about 56 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.H.No.1-1L2/ 12, Weeker Section Colony, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District. . 3).Md.Ahmed S/o.Mohd. Babu Miya Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 1-1 Lt / B I L26, WPF No. 1268, Babu Manzil, Raghavendra Colony, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District. 4).Ayesha Begum W/o.Md.Ahmed, Aged about 36 years, Ocb: House Wife, R/o.H.No. 1- I Lr / B I 126, WPF No.1268, Babu Manzil, Raghavendra Colony, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District. 5).Md.Asgar-S/o. Md. Qabu Miya, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.P.No.36 1-C, First Floor, B.A.Residency, Raghavendra Colony, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District. 6).Md.Asiya @ Asiya Begurn . W/o.Md.Asgat Aged about 29 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.P.No.36 1-C, First Floor, B.A.ReSidency, Raghavendra C.olony, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District. AND l).Tt-ie State of Telangana, Rep,b5r its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad . ... Petitioners/ Accused No.1 to 6 ,. . Respondent 2).Smt.Sana Begum W/o.Mohd.Afzal, Dlo.Mohd.Kamruddin, ".1o. R/o.H.No,8- I O9, Narsinghi Village, Puppalaguda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. . jj ! z-lb tlE, occl 6,.rgp,.r'Xa- . . . Respondent/ De- facto Complainant JOINT MEMO

1. The Petitioners are the Accused No. I to 6 in CC.No,972l2O24 on the file of rhe III Adrlitiona.l Judicia_t Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. Based on the Complaint nrzr.de by the De- facto Complainant, the Narsinghi police registered FIR No.246 /2024 and after completing the in t:stigation filed Charge Sheet for the offences U/sec.498-A 506 r/w.34 IpC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against the A,:<:used and the sarne is pending before the XIII Additional Judicial -7\-( Magistrate of First . Class, Ranga Reddy District at $qje4dranagar .;\...\ .l;

2. Recently tlle matter has bien settled between _$g;fi?9',,_f-.i ..,,.,J.lf,..P.-f".to Complainant has decidd to live,separ,3lpli from'the Accused by taking divorce. In pursuant to ttie setflement between the parties, the Accused No. 1 gz-ire Rs.1O,0O,O00/- to the De-facto Complainant byi'w1y*'of '. i fiu-aha Draft bearing No.006O28 datrd 16-04-2025 as full aria fiiraf setUement. Except the above said amount, the bc-'jfaiio:.. Comolainant has no clairn either inovable ;or - ,'.,,,,', : ,.,,,., i**ovaUte. properties against the Accused. The De-fActo :: :.r. -,-.,::.; r: . Cqmplainant .agreed that she will not make an1 I COmplaint l or any petltron agalnst Lne Accuseo ln Iufure . thd''Accused in future before qnY court or .rtt odty. From the date of entering ittto d-re compromise, both the parties should not disturb llre personal liber$r of either Party. !. ' .

3.. In view of the compromise between the parties, the D9- facto Complainant has no interest. to prosecute the Accused and accordingly she has no objection to allow the criminal petition and quash the proceedings befiore the trial court against (he .Accused herein. Therefore, since the _ matter tras been settled between the parties, the further proceedings before tJle trial court is abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Hence this memo. Date:2L-O4-2O25 ONER No.2 PETITIONER NO.4 " 1-rr*ffi ) A@ I')ETITIONER No.t $t NAl l)IITITIONER No.3 14a-Atofits PETITIONER No;S P ER No.6 COUNSEL FO 4 "2 ITIONERS 2"d RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR THE 2,d RESPONDENT