The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may ue pteaseJ to quash the FIR No.'152 ot 2o2s dated 11.04.2025 on the file of the e.3. cnaoerghat, Hyderabad therein. LA. NO: 2OF 2025 Between: Dr. Farhana Ghalib alias Farhana Zaman,wlo.Mohd eaiser, Aged about 49years, occ Doctor, R/o. H.No. 16-2-145, Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO,,I AND 1 Mohd Qaiser, S/o. Late M. Dastagiri, Aged about 46years, Occ. Business Rl/o.H. No. 16-2-145, Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad

2. The state of rerangana, Rep. by pubric prosecutor, High court of rerangana at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT No.1/RESpONDENT NO.2 Petition under section 359(6) R /v 528 of BNSS Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petilion, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/respondent No. 1/ Defacto complainant to compounding the offence U/sec 316 (2), 318(4), 3s, 340 (2) BNS Act in FtR irlo. .1 52 of 2025 PS chaderghat on the file of Hon'bre Vlll Additionar chief Judiciar Magistiate Nampally, Hyderabad against the respondenu petitioner /accused and quaih the proceedings therein l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 359(2) of BNSS Acct praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal peiiti6n, the High court rrv u" pl"3:99 to record the compromise in the crr.p.No. ot 2o2s and qraJn the fln ruo.r sz ot 2025, dated 11.04.2025 on the file of the p.s. chaderghat Hyderabad ug"in.i tn" '33s, l9!ili9n_el{4c9used by compounding the offences under S-ecrions'3j6(2), eiEAl, 340(2) BNS Act. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. vradimeer Khatoon, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and M/s. P. Sumitha, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: Common Order THE HONOIIRASLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2O25 In And CRIMINAL PETITION No.6256 of2o25 COMMON ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the pe[itioners in Crime No.152 of 2025 of Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338 and 340(2) of BNS.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

3. During the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and, accordingly, respondent No.2 lrled I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 to permit to compound the offences and to compromise the case

4. Vide order dated O1.05.2O25, this Court, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent No.2, directed the parties to appear before the 2 Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, H)derabad, for their identiflcation and also clirccted lhe Secretary to submit a report by 12.05.2025. In complizrncr: with the said order, the Secretary has submitted his report, on 12.05.2025.

5. In the report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, it is stated that in obedience ol the orders dated O1.05.2O25, the petitioners and the respondenr No.2 have appeared before him along with their counsel and on examination and verification of their particulars from theii Aadhar Cards, they were tallied. Thus the identification of both thc partres has been established.

6. The parties herein have Iiled a joint memo of compromise stating that they have settled the disputes between them amicably and respondent No.2 has no objection to quash the proceedings against thd petitioner herein in the above Case. The said joint memo of compromise and the report of the Secretary are placed on record.

7. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Bharathi Devi 3 and Anr v. State of Telangana and Anrr, wherein in paragraph Nos.19 and20, it is held as follows: "19. This Court found that though the offence punishable under Section 42O of lL,e IPC was compoundable under sub-section (2) of Section 32O CrPC lvith the leave of the Court, the offence of forgery was not included as one of the compoundable offences. However, the Court found that in such cases the principle enunciated in the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another8 should be applied.

20. This Court specifically noted that though it rs alleged that certain documents had been created by the appellant therein to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the Company was entitled, the power of quashing could be exercised. This Court found that in view of a compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank, it was a fit case where a technicality should not be allowed to stand in the rvay of quashing of the criminal proceedings. This Court found that in view of the settlement arived at between the parties, continuance of the same would be an exercise in futility." I I

8. In view the said report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, in view o[ the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Bharathi Devi (supra) and also in view of the compromise entered into between the t t ' zo2q tNsc zso I petitioner and respondent No.2, I.A.Nos.2 ancl 3 of 2025 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.152 ol 2025 of Chaderghat Police Station, Hydcrabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/accused. Petitioner undertake to pay an amount of Rs-2O,O00/ -(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to The Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c. No.52188926279, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch (2OO7O), IFSC Code :SBIN0O2OO70, NIICR No.5O0O04O57), within a period of ten days from today, and hle proof of the same into the Registry. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA OEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ I SECTTON OFFTCER _..- l\ \l Hyderabad [OUT] To 1. The Vlll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buitdings 1 at 3. The Station House Officer, Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad 4. One CC to Sri Vladimeer Khatoon, Advocate (OPUC) 6. Two CD Copies (along with a copy of joint memo of compromise) .. 5. One CC to Ms. P. Sumitha, Advocate [OPUC) 4. ^R ' Note: Total Amount of Rs. 20,0001 (Rupees Twenty thousand only) has been paid by Sd Vladimeer Khatoon, Counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 14.05.2025 to the "Director, Sainik Welfare Hyderabad and filed Memo as proof of compliance USR No. 50833 of 2025 dated 06-05-2025 -1'l \. !e f,, ]? \ HIGH COURT DATED: 1410512025 1 HE STA r4. lP ,r t "tt-l I t ,} '/> i.) o t) COMMON ORDER |.A.NOS.2 AND 3 0F 2025 IN/AND CRLP.No.6256 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRL.P. AND BOTH l.A.s {a1 e# MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL MISC. PE-TITION (Under Section 359(21 pFo/r8t of BNSS ACT.) 23r OF TELANGANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STA; '2n AT HYDERABAD Crl.P.MP.No. of 2025 IN Crl. P. No of 2025 Between: P.r;F1fh3l" Chalib @Farhana Zaman, W/ o. Mohd.eaiser,Aged about 49years, Occ: Doctor,R/o.H.No. I 6_2_ I +S,;Lages Colony, Ma lakpet, Hyderabad. .....Petitioner/ Defacto complainant 1 . Mohd. Qaiser, S / o. Late. M.Dastagir, Aged about 46years, Occ: Business, R/ o. H. No. I 6-2- I 45,Jud.ges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana Rep. byPublic prosecutor, ftigh Court ofTelangana at Hyderabad. ..Respondent No. 1 /Accused ....Respondent No. 1/Hyderabad p.S. Chaderghat JOINT MEM O F'ILED BY BOTH THtr PARTiES It is submitted t.at the petitioner herein i.e. Accused and the Responden[ No. 1/Defacto complainant were compromised in terms of Letter address to the Respondenr No.2/ p.S.Chadeght d,a1ed.23.O4.2025 Compromise petition along with Letter and the Defacto_complainant has no objection for euashing the FIR'No' 152 of 2o2s p's.chaderghat on the fire of Hon'bre vIII Addl.chiet Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad against the Respondent/ Petitioner/Accused and may be preased to pass such order or orders as this Hon'blc court deems fit and proper in the interest of Justice and crrcumstances of the case. in th e Couns Defacto-Complainant Petitioner/ Counsel lor Respondent No. l/ Accused Place:Hyderabad Date:29-O4-2025 Petitioner/ Defac to_ Complainant t Respond'bnt No. 1 /Accused