The High Court · 2025

8 The state or rerangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, Hiqr cc urt Buildinos. High Court Hycerabad, Thiou!h W.p.S. South East ,lon"e Hy leraOaO "-' ... RespondenUl"t Respondent in l.A.l,los.4 and 5 of 2025 PetitionUndersection52BofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pi;;;; to stay all further proceedings, i1c-ly!i1s the appearangg .9i. th' fetitioners/accused nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No .iBO ot ZOZI on the file the xV Additional bhi"f M"tropolitan 1vlagistrate Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. t.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 PetitionunderSection35g(6)ofBNSSprayingthatinthec|rcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pi.as"a to permit the 2nd respondent to compound the offences in C.C.No.280 of 2024 on the file the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad, LjistereO U/ Sec.498-A, 406, 5OO lPC, Sec 3 and 4 DP Act by recording the compromise, in the interests of justice. I.A. NO:4 OF 2Q25 PetitionunderSection35g(2)ofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pieaseO to record the compromise by qu-ashing- the proceedings against the i"1ition"r.lr""used nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No .2BO ot 2024 on the file the XV Additional Chief lr/letropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad. ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofMs.Sandhya Rani Racharla representing M/s. Disha Law Firm for the Petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 and of Ms. Rushika Vyas, Advocate for the Respondent No 2' The Court made the following: COMMON OROER THIi Fir)NOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TUKAFIAMJt l.A.Nos. 3 AND 4 oF 2025 ln/And JIRIMINAL PETIT|ON No. 5837 OF 202ri COMMON ORDER This rlr:n^iral Petition is filed under Sectioir S2B ,>f Bharatrya Nagarik Sura".sr a Sanhita, 2023 (for shorl ,BNSiS 2023,). seeking quashment.f :he proceedings against the petitioner.s in C C. No. 280 of 2024 on the f i; cf the learned XV Additional Chef i\4etropolitan lVlagistrate. Fly :i5 r.OrO

2. The pe rt. ior i rs are arrayed as accused Nos, 1 :o 7 in f re carendar Case registe-ed tt- the offences punishable under Secti,ns 4gB_A, 406, 506 of the lriiar- Penal Code, 1g60, Sections 3 and tr ol the Dowry Prohibiticn Ar;t i yt'1

3. Heard i\yir; ,>z ndhya Rani Racharla, iearned couns,ll. r:presenting M/s.Disha L;n I: rrn, appearing for the petitioners. t\rlr Jril-encier Rao Veeramalla, i::: r'r'ec Additionar pubtric prcsecrrror r :presenting respondent t,ic,. l-:tate and lvls.Rushika Vyas. learned counsel for resoondent N':,l/rl;-racfo complainant.

4. Pending iir,,; l;etition, the parties have entered irto tite c;mpromise and, accordinr;l\,, t t,ly moved l.A.Nos.3 and 4 ol 202t witr th ; prayg lg permit them t. r. ntt:. into compromise and by recordin; th: setflement to 2 I.A-Not I andl of 202i nt/and Lr/.P.N0.56 )Z 01 2025 ,* quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 in C.C No.280 of2A24

5. This Court vide otde'i. daled 28.04.2025 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 0205.2025 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 settlemenUcompromi se.

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 Gian Singh v. Sfate of Punjab and anotherl and Anit Mishra v- State of lJ.P.2; Sfate of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others3, this Court is of the ,=--.QQEl-9ered view that quashment of the impugned proceedings in view of ' 2012 (10) scc 303 'z 2024 INSC 189 ' zo19 (s) scc 688 I ,.,. 3 \lx.i i r; ;'f ,,, )02 i in/et:i (, .i. .,.:\ 1 i,9 i- af 202t \' the settlement L,y .:xercising jurisdiction under Sectio.t 4t2 C..p.C.l12g of BNSS, 2023, r'rct lj be in the interest of justice.

8. Accorrlirrg r. lA.Nos.3 and 4 of 2O2S are allorryed C,tnsequenfly, ali proceedinc:; iir () C. No. 280 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Additional l\le,r,rttlitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are i-eret>y quashed against the cef ti,) lers/accused Nos.1 to 7. I In the ,:l':r,,: terms, the Criminal petition is disp,:secj of Pendrrg rn i,;,:ellaneous appliCations, if any, sha lstend r:losed SD/. IVIOHD.ISMAIL DEPUIY REGISTRAR \ I To, //TRUE COPY// \ SEcIIoN oFFICER \,

1. The XV Ad lilional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate F/yderabad 2. The statir>n House Officer,WPS Souih East Zone poli,:e S:atio r, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs tc; th,: Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat,: of telangana at 4. One CC lo lVlis. Disha Law Firm, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC 1o [4r; f ushika Vyas, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Cor:ies Hyderabad (C)lJT) ADK/PSL Along with a (,opy of Joint Memo of Compromise \qr i- HIGH COUR'T DATED:09 t0612025 t COMMOTI ()FIDER l.A.Nos.3 anci 4 ot 2025 ln/and CRLP.No.58,3it of 2025 i J I 1' I l I I l lHE =r,){I t C

7. 2q Jttt{ ?0;5 * * ! tl,; ; tii :J:'J;- DISPOSINGi C)F THE CRLP AND ALLOWINGi l.A.Nos.3 ancl ,4 of 2025 qcoPRdl k a{s[e'5 I I j i I i l 1' l' ,/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUT)ICTIYTS}" HYDERABAD -- FOR THE STATE OF TEI'ANGANA crl'P'No' 5 W of2o25 ./'-) Between: 1. Madugula Yadagiri' i7". la""atg"la Parshu Ramulu' a!"J ss Ye"ars, occ: hrt' Employee' Rto. 2-2'1, Gucluf' Kalvakurthy Mandal' Nagarkurnool, Telangana'

2. Madugula Parshu Ramulu' S/o. Balaram l."ait vears' Occ: Agriculturist ^?'" i ,li, o"dur, Kivakurthy Mandal, Nagarkurnool, Telangana' q Mad.usula Naramma, w/o. iladugula Parshu Ramutu' occ: ABriculturist', . ;J;;G;s, Rto. 2-2-1, Guour' fJvatcurtt'y Mandal' Nagarkurnool, Telangana'

4. MadugulaSaleshawaram' i].lrr?a"g"la Parshu Ramulu' i!;3t Y;*s, occ: Brt' Employee' Rl o. 2-2-1, cuJur' Kalvakurthy Mandal' Nagarkurnool' Telangana' 5 6 7 Shivaleela @ Gundoor Shivaleela' W/o.G.AnjaneYulu, ;fiaa vl"t., o""t Housewife' n7L. r-s-8-s+31128, cBItI Nagar' 'ril"""rP"*, Secundeabad' Madusula Anusha, W / o. Madugula Saleshawaram' i".aii Yeis, occ: Housewife' ^t"* ;;li, C;dur, KalvakrrthY Mandal Nagarkurnool, Telangana' ' G.Anianeyulu, S/ o' ThiruPathi' I-Js8;"*t, ott: Frt' EmPloyee' i7.. r-e-8-s+ gt | 28, CBN Nagar' nl"ootp.r.^, Secundeabad AND petitioners/ A-1 to A-7 N$qr. 1 2 The Starr of Telangana, Rep. :y 1s public prosecutor, High .lor:rt Buildings, High Court, Hydellb ad. Thror:gh 'W.p.S. South East Zone, Hyderrrb,rd .... 1"t Respondent/r)omplainant Madur,lrl a Santhoshi Kumari, W/o,',1a,lugula yadagiri, Agec .:,2 .,,:ars, Occ: Employee, R/o.H Nc. 1 B-t -332 / c/ 4t ie,' Saibri a I,lagar, Near DRDL, Upprrg :rl a, Hyderabad. .... 2'd.Respondent/De-fa<:to c omplainant I n MOU AND J,O[] TT MEMO FILED I{os.1 .4,t{D 2 AND BYTHE PETITIo.tYERS lAcCUSED NDE NT IDE- FACTO THE ..!nD4- COMPLAINANT I l t I I i l I petitioners/ accused petition seeking to rros.1 to 7 quash the 2024 on the file the IIon,ble XV Magistrate Hyderabad, registered Sec.3&4DpAcr w- terein the 1 . It is s rrb riitted that the herein file,l thr. above quash proceedingsr in (l.C.No.2gO of Additionai C:ri,:f Metropolitan U/Sec.498-A ,+(t6, 506 tpc, petitioners ztr,,: llgured as accused. nos.1 to 7 2. complainanl anc, the petitioners/accused nos.1 to .z the disputes rrrn;c:abiy settle the present dispute in (l.C.No.2gO of 2024 on thr: lle the Hon,ble XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ii1 d,:iabad, registered u/sec.49s_A 4o6, 506 Ipc, Sec.3 & 4 Dp Ar:: before this Hontrle High Courr. lr.s such,.they have hled th,: ,;r.<:s;ent petition seeking this Hon,ble lligh Court to record the com :r.o nise. It is lrr_:rrLllty submitted that the 2.a Respondent/de_facto hz,ve settled ( l\s\- l,

3. That the disputes in between the both parties are being compromised in the Divorce OP No 1216 of 2024 filed by the petitioner No 1 against the 2id Respondent/De-facto complainant herein pending on the Iile of Ist Additional Family Court Cum-XW Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad also settled' as Both parties agreed to take a divorce by mutual consent and petitioner No 1 agreed to pay an amount of Rs 20'00'OO0/- Rupees Twenty Lakhs) towards fulI and final settlement of the dispute, in which Rs 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only ) towards permanent alimony and maintenance' and the balance amount of Rs 7,00,000/- ( Rupees Seven Lakhs only) will pay by way of a Demand d'raft in the name of the daughter Madgula Dhrithi Manogna before the .lJon'ble Court on the d'ate of frling of evidence affidavits for obtaining divorce by mutual consent' The petitioner agreed to give Permanent custody of the daughter Mad(,ula Dhrithi Manogna, 2"d Xespondent/ De facto complainant herein and other terms more fully mentioned in the Memorandum of Understand-ing dated' L7'O3'2O25 U/Sec'89 of C'P'C before Nyay3 Seva Sad'an, L,egal Services Authority at City Civil Court' Hyderabad are being compromised" That as per the contents mentioned in the said compromise petition' are true ald correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. Hence, they are filing the present joint Memo ald copies of the demand drafts ' It is therefore prayed that this Honble Court may pe pleased to permit the petitioners/accused nos' I to 7 herein to compound the offences with the 2d Respondent/De-facto Complainant herein by recording' compromise and by allowing the Crirninal petition No. of 2Ol25Ii1ed by the petitioners/accused nos'1 to 7 against C.C.No.280 of 2024 on the file the Hon'ble XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyd'erabad' registered U/ Sec'498-A' er order or 406, 506 IPC, Se c. 3 & 4 DP Act, and Pass such oth I dNl*-\J12 I! I i i I L I I ,; i I i I i t I I I I Tt : '.: l { ,l ,l I j l,l l l I orders as rir; Hon,ble Court may deem fit and prr circumstar.c(. s o[the case. .,- \"dt rper in the lioner No. \ !:-,-.l.ltnr"'j l)etit ioner No. E($9 I'etit roner No.3 P--tifi ()ner No.4 e.,5. )$,leEfi6- Pt:titioner No.5 n' \.. : n Petitioner No.6 r. Ai*t*\ Pe.:itio :er No.7 Hyderabad. ot.lJ -o+-iozs PETITIONERS P*'|A'S' P " ' CoUNSELFoRiHE Fri ,lopD{r- . ,r.\t, \" \.-\\'-'' 2"d Respondent/ De-facto C rmgrlalnant V Hyderabad. Dt.lj -04-,o2s COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONT)ENI NO.2