Narinder Singh v. St l r. of I zou.t to scc

Smt. Arigala Saritha, W/o Arigala Rama Krishna, (De-facto complainant) aged 47 years,Occ. Housewife, R/o Flat no-1 '19 SVRS Brundavanam Venkatadri Apartment, Venkateswara colony, pochama bagh, Saroor Nagar, Rangareddy District, Telangana State ...RespondenUComplainant 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 C.C.No.506212022 on the file of the court of the lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar (ln the Court of the lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at LB Nagar). l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 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 stay all further proceedings of C.C. No.5062/2022 on the file of the court of the lll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar (ln the Court of the lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at LB Nagar). l.A. NO: 3 OF 2O25 : Between: Smt. Arigalg Saritha, WJo Arigala Rama Krishna, (De-facto r omplainant) aged 47 years,Occ.Housewtfe, R/o Flat no-1 19 SVRS Brundavanarn Venkatadri {pa(ment, Venkateswara colony, pochama bagh, Saroor l{ )gar, Rangareddy District, Telangana State. ' - AND 1 Arigala Ramakrishna, S/o. S.Jaqannadham. Aqe 5. vears Hindu. [\/ale. Rl/o.H.No.15-57, Hanuman Nagarl Western Locki, 1.1 ' div sion, Eluru, Eluru District. ..Petiti oner/2nd respondent

2. The State of Telangana, Through SHO Woman P. S rr:pr -:nted ry its public Prosecutor ...F e s po nde nUPetitio ne r ...Respon JenU2nd respondent Petition under Section 359(2) of BNSS-2023 (U/S 320 :rf CR.pC) praying that in the circumslances stated in the lviemorandum of ,]rounrls of criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to record comprr nise and quash the proceedings in cc No.5062 of 2022 on the file of the illrd A iditioral Junior civil Judge-cum-lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Cta:;s L B.Nagar Ranga Reddy District and acquit the petitio ners/accu sed by e llrwing the Criminal Petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 359(6) of BNSS praying that ir the (lircumstances stated in the lrlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the 2nd Respondent to compound thr: rffences in C.C No. 5062 of 2022 on file of the lllrd Additional fVletropolrta r t\4agistrate court cyberabad at L.B.Nagar Rangareddy District and allow the criminal petition, in the interest of Justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing t re l,/emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri p.Narayana Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and tvr.surepalli prashan h, Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Ms.Bontr iajani, representing Mr.Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON,BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 ln and CRIMINAL PETITION No.72L9 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: This Criminal Pr-'tition is filed under Section 528 ol the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') sccl<ing to quash tl-rc proceedings against pctitioner/accused No.l in C.C.No.5062 ot 2022 on the lile of III Additional Junior Civil Judge cum I[[ Additional .]udicial Magistrate of First Class. Ranga Il<:dd-r'Distri<rt at L-LJ. Nzrgar

2. Heard Mr. P. Narayana Rao, Iearned counsel for pctitioner, Ms. Bontu Ra.;ani, learned counsel representing Mr. Ch. B. R. P. Scklrar, Icarned counscl for respondent No.2 and Mr. Surepalh Prashanth, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 State. Perused the materia-l on record

3. I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 are filed to record compromise and compound the offences and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5062 of 2022 on lhc file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lll Additional .Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 2 JAK. J ( t{ .r, 72r9 202) 1:Sn Ranga Reddv District at l-.B. Nagar. l.A.Nos.l rrn<l .l ol 2025 rvere accordirrgly allorved.

1. On the ltrerrious occasion, u,hcn the n r, tL(.r- ,-rame up, learned counsel for petitioner/ accuscd No zrnc learned counsel for :-t:spondcnt No,2/complainatnt r r inslructions. submitted th:rt thc parties are ri,iling to ( ( l,l)]-olnisc tl-r. matter. By order dated 23.07.2025, this (,rrrr.t direcLcd learned coun scls on re<:orcl to bc l)rcs( r Secretary, High Court Legal Serviccs Cotrmrll c. along ri.ith parties for identification. A report is su lr I, r itt<:cl bl, thr, Secretary, High Court Legal Services Cot rt nittc,-,. dated l;c1bre the

23.O7 .2025, r'r hich is as follou.s: "Rcspondcr't t No.2 / complain:rn t Saritha did not appear tocl a,r' identification rxruld not be done.,' SItl rt .\r 3al:r anrl tlr .forc hcr .5. It is observed fi-om Lhe report dated 2.. 17.11025, that respondent No.2 /complainant could not bc ic:t rrtrlieil as shc n,as not present before the SecretarJ.,, Telangi r rr )[ig1h Court Legal Servir:e s Committee.

6. Todal learned counsel appearing i) r bc.half of respondent No.2 - complainant submitted tl; r r.r:spor-rclent i. ..,, J JAK,.I ]RLP 7219 2025 No.2 could not appear bcfore the Secrctary on 23.07.2025 due to some medical emergency and a request is made by learned counsel to issue a direction permitting respondent No.2 - complainant to appear beforc the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee. Hence, this Court directed respondent No.2 to appear belore the Secretary, Teiangana I{igh Court Legal Services Committee for identification and directed High Court Legal Services Committee to submit a report u'ith regard to the r'r'iilingness of rcsponden t No.2 compl:rin:rnt.

7. A report is submitted by the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, dated 28.07.2025, which is as follows "Accordingly, I l'rave vcrificd the particulars o[ Respondent No.2 / CompL.rinant - Smt. Arigala Szuitha (Aadhar Card) and she is duly idcntified with copy her Aadhar Card, rvhich is endorsed by thc counsel ald the same is cnclosed hr:rcwith.When askcd, Respo;tdent No.2 / Complainan t, slaterl lh:rt shc is rvillfully and withoul any cocrcion crrtcred irlto Contprornise." B. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.06.2025 is filed along with I.A.No.3 of 2025 wrth certain terms and conditions agreed upon betu,een respondent No.2 and petitioner, both of them attested their signatures in the ,l JAK, J r:R Llj 7219 2025 presence of two witnesses. A demand draft ft.an :rmount of. Rs. 10,00,000/- is drawn in favour of Ari11r rla Khyatidecp (second son of petitior-rer and re spondent No..l

9. The Hon'b1e Apex Court in K.Bha.ra thi Deui and another u The State of Telangana d.nd ancthert referring to the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Gian Singh u State of Punjabz in paragraph No.32, held tl-rat r .lencc s :rrising out of matrintonial disputes partrcularly relnt i rp to clo u,r,rr or a famill' disputc rvhcrc the wrong is bnsicit L betir.een thr: victim ancl the offender ar-td if both the par ies siettle the disputes betlteen them am.icably, the lligh (l rurr- ,,,vould bc quashing the criminal proce-r lings against 1n .Justilicd accu sed

10. After filirrg of thrs quash petition, parties havc reached a settlemcnt, and no\\r seeking quashin e ol. crim inal proceedings against petitioner/ accused No.l. L is pertincnt to extract relevant portion of the judgment it , I(,Bh arathi Deui's case (1 supra): ".10. Subsequently, a two_Judgc Bench cl rhis Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. St l r. of I zou.t to scc 3s.1 ' 1:o t:) t0 st--c :o: -5 JAI(. J CRLP 72 r9 2025 Punjab, \'2O l4l 6 SCC 466 : (2O1a) 3 SCC (Cri) 541 , after considering the earlier pronouncements of this Court, culled out the position thus: (SCC pp.482- 84 , para 29) "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, \ve sum up ar-rd lay do'"vn thc follorvir-rg principlcs by rvhich the I{igh Court would be guided in giving adequatc treatment to the settlement betwccn the partics arld cxercising its powcr undcr Sectior-r 482 of the Code whilc acccpting the settlement and cluashing thc procccdings or rcfusing lo accept the scttlemcnt with dircction to continLlc rvith thc crimLnal proccedings:

29.1. Power conlcrred under Seclion 482 ol the Code is to bc distingr-rished from thc pos,cr r,vhich lies in lhe Collrl. to compound the oflences undcr Section 32O ol thc Codc. No doubL. unclcr Scc[ion 482 of tl.rc Clodc, thc I Iigh Court h:rs inhr:rcnt por'vcr to quash the criminal procccdings cvcn ir.t Lhosc c:rses whiclr arc not compoundable, whcre the parties have settled thc matter between themsclves. llou,ever, thrs pou,cr is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. Wh,en thc partics have rcacht:d Lhe settlement ancl on that basis petitior.r lor quashing the criminal procecdirrgs rs filccl, thc guiding factor in such cases rvould bc to securc: (r) ends o[justicc, or (ii) to prcvent abusc of the process of anv court Whrle exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to bc excrciscd in those prosccutions which involve heinous ar-rd serious offences of mental depravity or oflenccs like murder, rape, dacoity, ctc. Such offences are not private in naturc ard havc a seriou s impact on society. Similarly, for thc offences alleged to have been committed under special statui6-like the Prevention of Corruption Act or thc offcnccs committed by public 6 J AK, J cR t.t, 7l i9 2025 scrvants while working jn that capacity are n( t quasltc(l lncrely on the basis of compromise bc the victim and the offender. :o be \\re e t_l '29.4. ()ti thc othcr-hald, thosc criminal cases I rvir.tg ovcru l.rr'. rntr.rglv ancl prcdominalltlv cir,,il ctri r :cttr-. lrartrcLrJ;rllr those :rrisir.rg out oI conrr r-cirr] [riir.lszr( ll{)lts or arising out ol mair.tn rr-rj:rl I,ljrlr,,rt I ip ,rr lrrnily dispures should bc ,1. ,h,..r r',hcn titL l)arties ilavc reso[,.,ecl their entire d]s )u1es amorlg I llomselvcs.

29.5. Wlrikr cxercisiltg its powers, the High C, rrt is Lo cxiurlrc- :rs to rvhcther the possibility of cortr I tior.r rs rcrnol(' and bleak and continuation of cr i linzrl cirscs Nor.rld I)Ll1 thc accused to great oppressrot al1cl pr<:jr-rriici :irrd extreme rniusticc would be caus,cl t,-r hirn by rurt quashing thc criminal cases. .29.(r. ()1l, rrr:cs ultcicr Section ll0TlPC would fall rr tlrr: c,rlcg()rv ol hcinous altd serious offcncc: :u](l lhr:rr:fort'irrc to he gcnerally treatcd as crimc :,! rinst lhc soci('l.y ar-rd not against tl-re individu:ij ;,rnc. llowcvcr. rlte [{igh Court would not rest its r]r r sron rnercl.", br:t.ausc therc rs a mention of Sectlon 3t ;lp(l rn th,r lilll or tlrc chargc rs 1.ramed unclc- thr:; provision. It u,otild be opcn to thc IIigh ao.r t() cxarnint' ils to whethcr incorporation of Se :r-ron llOTlPr, ir; tltcrc: lor. thc sakc of it or the prosc. tiorl ir.rs coll(,ctccl sulficient evidence, which if pr .,.ecl. rvould k ird to prorring the charge under S:. iorl 3071t'(j. i'rrr this llurpose , rt r,",ould be oper.r r the. IIiglr Oorrr-L to go l)y the naturc of injury suslr rje.l. s,hether sLrch inj r-r11, is inflicted on the vital/dcl car€ lrarts of thc bodr', naturc of weapons usecl. ct<:. I\4cdicrrl rt'port in rcspect of injunes suffered lrr the victim can gcncrally be the guiding factor. Or- thc basis ol tlris prima facie analysis, the Fligh CoLr -t cat.r cx;lmirrr irs lo u,h(.ther therc is a slrong possil,rlr .r,l convicLiolr or the chances of conviction are r,t. rotc and [r]cali. Ir} the former casc it carl refuse to r ( -ept tl.rc scttlcrnent and quash the criminal proce€c ngs u,hcrcirs ir) thc latter case it would be permissil,l,. for thc lligh Court to accept thc plca compoundir: g tl,rr: 1 JAK, J ct{LP 7219 2025 offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, thc Court carl also be swaycd by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony betwcen them rvhich may improvc their luturc rclationship.

29.7. Whilc dcciding rr,,hcther to exercise its pon,cr under Scctron 482 of the Codc or not, timings ol scttlcmcnt play a crucial role. Those cases [.here thc settlernent is arrived at immt:diately after the allegcd commission o[ oflcncc and thc matter is still undcr invcsligatio[r, tlrc I{igh CouIt may bc Libcral in acccptlng the settlement to quash the crimine proceed ings / invesLigation. It is because of thc reason that at this stage the investigation is sti1l on ald even tl're charge-sheet has not becn fllcd. Likes'ise, l.hose cases rvhere the chargc is framed but thc er. idence is -yet to start or thc cvidence is still at infancy st:rgc, thr: Iligh Court car.r shou, br:ncvolcncc in exercisirrg rts powers favourably, but aftcr prima lacic asscssmcnt of thc circumstartccs/ material mentioncd abovc. On the other hand, u,hcrc thc prosccution evidence is almost complcte or aftcr the conclusion ol the cvrdcr]cc the mattcr is at thc stage of argu mcnt, normally the lligh Courl strould rr:frain fror:t exr:rcising its porvcr under Section 482 tll fhc Codc, as rn such cases the trial court woulcl be in a positron to decide the casc hnally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Scction 3O7IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cascs where the conviction is alrcady rccordcd bl, the trial court and the mattcr rs at the appellate stagc before the High Court, mere compromise bct$,een thc parties would not be a ground to accept the samc resulting in acquittal of the offcr-rder who has already been convicted by thc trial court. Llere charge is proved undcl Scction 3O7ll)C and conviction rs a1read1, recorded ol a hcinous crimc and, thereforc, there is no quesLion of sparing a cor-rvict lour-rd gurlry o[ such a crime. ' 8 JA K. .I a R l_t) 72 t9 2015 'r$, . 't,i r'-'

11. In vieu of thc Mcmorandum of Undcr rLarrding dated 30.06.2025 and reports dated 23.07.2025 art 28.a7.2025 ol secretarl', Higl-r court Legal Services corami, l .e .nd the rau, laid down br the Ilon,ble Apex Court, thjs ( ,otrrt is of thc considerccl oltinion tl-lat the procc(,. ;rgs against petitionerT acr:uscd No. 1 bc quashed to sr:r.u ,r thc ends of justicc ancl also to p11)\,cnt abuse of proccss ,) ,r\\..

12. For afor-i:said rcasons, this Criminal pt:t r iorr ir; allou,ecl in lerms oI compromise and the procL. . lin51s against pr:l iticrncr/ ircr- .scd i\i.. i in c.C.No.5062 of 20 ).) ot) rrre file of Itl Additior-ral .Irrnir:r Civil .ludge_cum_lll Addi io.al ,Judrcial Magistrate of l,'irst Clilss, Ranga Reddv Distrir:i rt [_.1]. Nagar., arc hercbv qr.urshcd. N4iscellerne.us erpplications pending, if ir r,, sit.ll star_r cl closed. //TRUE coPY// I \,. ru!\$'"^i,Yt[eHffi- ,,,iCi,oN oFFtcER \1 To' . . r.^^^rir.n lianiqrrate cvberaba\ A, L I Nrnrr.

1. The lll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' Cyber 2. The Station uou." oiiJ""r'5""'""Js'i wp's' RachaYort' a' 3. Two CCs to the puuric Fiotl"utor' High Court for the stak q. One CC to Sri P Narayana Rao' Advocate to-lycl 5 o;; Cc to Hrtr.Cn s R P Set<har, Advocate [oPUc] 6. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad. [OUT] ' of Telangana' at Svs/PSL (Along llith a copl' of Joint N'lemo) Y{ !l l{r HIGH COURT DATED:2810712025 COMMON ORDER l.A NOs.2 and 3 of 2025 In/and CRLP.No.7219 ot 2025 ,a'.". \ ,/..( ./: 1 7 tir. ?0fr \. .,,, \.,'\- ,7 -:-,- ALLOWING THE CRLP in/and l.A NOs.2 and 3 ot 2025 t V. "da i{{# i. :) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD CRLP. No.7219 o'f 2025 Between: Arigala Ramakrishna S/o. AJaganadham Age 54 years, Hindu, Male, R/o H.NO. 15-57, Hanuman Nagar, Western Locks, 'l9th division, Eluru, Eluru District Adhara No. 4704 8593 8983 Cell No. 98480 02061 AND Petitioner/A1

1. The state ofTelangana& others Through SHO Women P.S. SAROOONAGAR, Rep by its .Public Prosecutor Hyderabad Respondent

2. Arigala Saritha, Wo A. Ramakrishna, D/o. Daliparthi Veera Raghavulu Hindu, Female, Aged about 44 Years, R/o Flat No:1 19, Venkatadri Block, SVRS Apartments, Venkateswara Colony, Pochammabagh, Saroornagar, R. R. District, Telangana State. Aadhar No. 9753 6025 9408 .. 2nd respondent /Defacto Complainant JOINT MEMO 1 It is submited that, the above criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/Al seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C No. 5062 of 2022 on file of the lllrd Addl Metropolitan Magistrate Court Cyberabad at L.B..Nagar Rangareddy District. The said criminal petition ls pending.

2. During pendency of the Criminal petition, the 2nd respondenU defacto complainant and the accused agreed to settle all their disputes and a memorandum of understanding was arrived at. ln terms of the said MOU the 2nd respondent a and accused No;1/ her husband both greed to take divorce by mutual consent. ./ 3 6 I *r"Itfil,T:::l:il:-ro have the above r entioned cc quashed,r ** of Memoraro rm of Understanding is filed arong *,,n ,in -r, ril:.^ .2 Hence, the petitiOners Drav rh^r .L: .. mlm*t:lffi-I1;'T :;;;'"ir * mav be peased'[. and acqui*he petitioner/acjl f'o"...*o " l- u'*,r,,.:JJ,,thi;,.:,#.l the criminar i,ettion in cRLp No z21sor2o2s ,;il,;";:::::j::_,, i \ Hence this Memo Hyderabad Date. .07.2025 ,^_ Peti tioner //Accused 1 4 D efacto Complain ant / 2nd Respondent. .ffit ( Petitioner /A1 Counsei { spondent I I I I