Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Oriminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased Permit the Petitioner/Responpent No.3 to compound with the Respondents/Petitioners/Accused wo are PQtitioners in the above CRLP No.85'19 of 2016 which s filed to quash the Crime Nd. 102/20'16 Dated 2610412016 for the offences under section 418,464,406 and 506 r/w.1208 of IPC and pass l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Sri Patimedi Jagapathi Rao, S/o. Late Qashaiah, aged about 65 years, R/o. Plot No.98, Street No.3, Lane No.2, Ea$t Marredpally, Secunderabad. (Died ) as per L.R., Sri Patimedi Narsing Rao, S/o. Late Sri iPatimedi Jagapathi Rao, Aged about 44yearc, Occ: Business, R/o H.NO.'10i3-73/3, P.No.98, Lane No.2, Street No.3, Teachers Colony, East marredpalfy, secunderabad. ...Respondent No.3/Defacto Complainant 1 2 AND '1 The State of Telangana, Through Publi0 Prosecutor, High Courl of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telanganfl and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. . .. RespondenURes pondent

2. Teja Homes PVT LTD., Rep. by its M Prasad Reddy, S/o.Sri Ramana Reddy R/o. H.No.2-22-310, F.No.11lA and Kukatpally, Hyderabad., anaging Director Sri Marreddy Siva Aged about 45 Years, Occ Business 2lA, Krupa Towers, Western Hills,

3. M/s. Sri Challa Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri Challa Subba Reddy, S/o. Sri C.Venketeshwar Reddy, Aged about 40 Years, Occ Business, R/o. Flat No.303, H.No.2-221571A; Viiayanagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

4. M/S. Sri Mani Sai Avenues,, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri M.Rama Mohan, S/o. Sri t\il.Tataiah Naidu, Aged about 46 Years, Occ Business, R/o. Flat No. 10'1 , Vishal Towers, Baghmeerl, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

5. Sri Rednam Ramchandra Rao, S/o. $ri S. Satyanarayana, Aged about 45 Years, Occ Business, R/o. D. No.67-21-1lA, L.B.Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 4

6. M/S. Swapna Surya Developers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sri N.Nageshwara Rao, Aged about 42 Years, Occ Business, R/o Flat No'102, Plot No. HIG- 575, Sri Sudershan Plaza, 6th Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderubad-72 7 M/S. Perfect lnfra. Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri A.Ramanujaiah, S/o Late A.Rangarah, Aged about 70 Years, Occ Business, R/o. Flat No. 501, Plot No. HIG-575, Sri Sudershan Plaza, 6th Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad- 72.

8. M/s. Sri Venkateshwara lnfra,, Rep. by its Managaing Partner, Sri Y.V. Raghunandan. S/o. Sri Y.C.Rao, Aged about 40 Years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.6-3-596/63/8, Naveen Nagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad- 04.

9. Sri Alp Ranga Rao, S/o Sri Subba Rao, Aged about 53 Years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.4-84, Suraram Colony, Ranga Reddy District

10. tvl/s. Laasyasri Developers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri Kotta Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. K.Satyanarayana, Aged aboul 42 Years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.1-7-919/A/2, Ram Nagar, Hyderabad

11. Sri G.Pulla Rao, S/o. Sri Tirupathaiah, Aged about 40 Years, Occ Business, R/o. Plot No. 463 and 4641A, Flat No. 402, Sri Rama Heavens, Madhavapuri Hills, PJR Enclave, Ameenpur (V), Chandanagar, Hyderabad

12. M/s. Vijay Sai Prolects, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri Korrapati Subash Babu, S/o, K.Prabhakar Rao, Aged about 30 Years, Occ Business R/o, Flat No. 205, Sai Castle Apartments, 6th phase, KPHB Colony, KUkatpally, Hyderabad 72

13.Sri Gehlot Ramesh Chowdary, S/o. Ruparam Chowdary, Aged about 46 Years, Occ Business, R/o. MIG 22, Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase-ll, Hydernagar, Hyderabad- 85. '14. Mis. Vasudeva Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri Tiyyagura Srinivas Reddy, S/o. T.Hanimi Reddy, Aged about 40 Years, Occ Business, R/o. Flat No.402, TSR Reddy Residency, Eenadu Colony, Kukatpally. ...Respondents/Petitioners Petition under Section 359(8) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Record Compromise and compound with the proceeding Crime with FIR No.'1 0212016 Daled 2610412016 for the offences under Section 418,464, 406 and 506 R/w.'1208 of lPC. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitlon, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Pradeep Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Hassan Hussain Junaidi. Advocate for the Respondent No 3. , CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8057 OF 2016 Between:

1. Smt B.Lakshmi Narasamma, t99em*, Wo. Sri Late B.Dasarath, Occ House-wife, R/o Plot No.39, lrllahe$hwarinaoar, Bharatnagar Colony, Hyderabad-'18.

2. Smt.B.Lakshmi, Wo Sri Late B.Shankarjiah, Occ House-wife, R/o Plot No.28, [\ilaheshwarinagar, Bharatnagar Colony, fi yderabad-1 8.

3. Smt.B.Uma Rani, Wo Sri B.Pentaiah. Occ Housewife, R/o.F-35, Madhura Ndgar, Hyderabad-38

4. Sri B.Srinivas, S/o. Sri B.Dasarath, Maheshwarinagar, Bharathnagar Colony, 5. Smt,B.Veeramani, Wo Sri B.Prabhakar H.No.2-22-17 3l A, Jayanagar, Kukatpally, Occ Business, R/o Plot No.39, Hyderabad-18. Occ House-wife, R/o Plot No.241, Hyderabad-500072. ... Petitioner/Ar tcused No.S to 9 in lA.No.1 ot 2025 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Judicature at Hyderabad. the Public Prosecutor, High Court of 2 Sri Patimedi Jagapathi Rao, S/o. Late Baphaiah, aged about 65 years, Rio. Plot No.98, Street No.3, Lane No.2, East lvlarredpally, Secunderabad. (Died ) as per L. R., ...Respondent No.2/Defafto Complainant in lA.No.1 oI 2025

3. Sri Patimedi Narsing Rao, S/o. Late Sri P 44 yearc, Occ: Business, R/o. H. NO. 'l 0-3 No.3, Teachers Colony, East Marredpally Atimedi Jagapathi Rao, Aged about 173/3. P.No.98, Lane No.2, Street , Secunderabad. (Respondent No.3 is brought on record as L per court order dated 17 04.2025, vide Cdp No.8057 of 2016) iR. of Deceased respondent No.2 as lA.No.l and 2 of 2022 made in ... RespondenUDefa 1 to Complainant in l.A.No.1 ol 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crim nal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the F.l.R.No. 102 of 2016 ated 26.042016, on the file of the Central Crime Station, Police Station, Hydera ad, for the alleged offences under Section Nos.406, 418, 420, 464 and 506 R/w 120 (B) of the lndian Penal Code, '1860 I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 CRLPMP. NO: 8892 OF 20 6 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances nal Petition, the High Court may be No.102 of 2016 dated 26.04.2016. stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Crim pleased to stay all further proceedings in F.l 6 on the file of the central crime station, ps, Hyderabad, including the arrest of the Petitioners pending disposal of the main Criminal petition. l.A. NO: 1OF 2O2s 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 take on record the above Joint compromise memo dated z}to3tio2s on record and consequently quash the proceedings in FlR.No.102/2016 registered on the file of the central crime station, police Station, Hyderabad, as aga'inst the petitionbrs/Accused No.5 to 9. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri M.V.Durga Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and of sri D y. N. L. N. charyuru,Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER L I THE HONOURABLE SRIJUqTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO I.A.No.2 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMIN L PETITION No.85l9 of 20 l6 AN I.A.No.l of2025 IN/AND CRIMIN L PETITION No.8057 of 2016 COMMONORDER: These two criminal petitions e filed by accused Nos. 10 to 22 and 5 to 9 respectively, invoking e provision of 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seek ng to quash the proceedings in FIR.No. 102 of 2016 on the file of he Central Crime Police Station, Hyderabad, against them.

2. During the pendency of th criminal petitions, the parties settled the disputes between them, e tered into compromise and fited joint. compromise memos vide l.A o.2 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.8519 of f,r 2016 and I.A.No. I ol 2025 in Crl No.8057 of 2016 and recorded + Legal Serviccs Commiflee, the compromise. This Court ref-err d the matters to the High Court t Hyde + parties. Accordingly, the parlies ave appeared before the High fbr identification of the bad, Court Legal Services Committee, IJ derabad. The High Court Legal Services Committed, Hyderabad,, submitted its reports dated

24.04.2025 and 28 .07 .2025 .

3. Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learntd counsel for the petitioners in Crt.P.No.85l9 of 2016 and Sri X ]. Venkateswara Rao, learned ,/ r-- 2 .- Y*1\t\r \ counsel, representing Sri M'V' Durga Prasad' learned cottnsel for the petitioners in Crt.P.No'80 57 of 2016 submitted that the matters were settled by virtue of the compromise and the sarrle maY be disposed of. Taking into consideration the facts and circurnstances of the 4. cases and the submissions of leamed counsel for the petitioners in both the cases, I.A.Nos'l and 2 of 2025 are allowed and the ioint compromise memos fited by both the padies are taken on record and FIR.No.l02 of 2016, dated 26'04'2016 is quashed against accused Nos.5 to 22. 5 Consequently, these Criminat Petitions are disposed of in terms of thc joint compromise memos dated 08 '04'2025 and

28.03.202s. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any' shall stand closed' I SD/. A.V.S,PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI FICER To, i+[:iLtsl'ffi11'""J+::y:3:H?,':'rs,H,?s[1ll"XlEIf:Jtgt'""" " +*;""ltst" the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hvdera!4d IOUTI 4 6 7 8 One CC to Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, Adv te [OPUC] One CC to Sri M.V.Durga Prasad Adv cate [OPUCI One CC to Srr Hassan Hussain Junaid , Advocate [OPUC] One CC to S ri D.Y.N.L.N.Charyulu, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copi ES (Along with the copies of Joint Memo oif compromise) NVI]/I'SI- M, L x HIGH COURT DATED:01 10812025 lflE s o t- 2 AI l Z a') * Oa \ nAT'; * COMMON ORDER lA.No.2 ot 2025|n/And CRLP.No.8519 of 2016 AND lA.No.1 oI2025ln/And CRLP.No.8057 of 2016 I DISPOSING THE BOTH CRIMINAL PETITIONS AND ALLOWING l.A.Nos.1 and 2 OF 2025 4 ,IN b .l HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAtsAD r.A.NO OF 2025 IN CRL.P.NO 8519 0F 2016 Between:- I 2 3 4 5 TEJA HOMES PVT LTD Rep by its Managing Director SRI MARREDDY SIVA PRASAD REDDY, S/o Sri Ramana Reddy, Aged about 54 Years Occ Business, R/o H No 2-22-310 F No 11lA and \2/A, Krupa Towers, Western Hills, Kukatbally, Hyderabad. M/s SRI CHALLA CONSTRUCJIONS Rep by its Managing Partner SRI CFIALLA SUBBA REDDY S/o. Sri.e.Venketeshwa r Reddy, Aged about 48 Years, Occ:Busines R/o. Flat. No.303, H.No.222/ 57 / A, Vijayanagar Colony, Kukatpally Hy q, 4"rabad M/S SRI MANI SAI AVENUES Rep by its Managing Partner SRI.M.RAMA MOHAN, S/o.Sri. M.Tataiah Naidu, Aged about 54 Years, Occ:Businesq, R/o Flat No.101, Vishal Towers, Baghmeeri, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. SRI REDNAM RAMCHANDRA RAO, S/o. Sri.S.Satyanarayana, Aged about 53 Years, Occ:Busines5, R/o.D.No.67- 2L-I fA, L. B. Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavrari District, Ahdhra Pradesh. M/S SWAPNA SURYA DEVELOPERS, Rep by its Managing Partner SRI.N.SRINIVASA RAO, S/o.Sri. N. Nageshwara Rao, Aged about 50 Years, Occ Business, R/o.Flat.No.102, Plot.No.HIG 575, Sri Sudershan Plaza, 6th Phase KPI-f B Colony, Kukatpally Hyderabad 72. Id 6 7 o 9

10. 11

72. @) M/S PERFECT INFRA Rep by its Managing partner SRI A RAMANUJAIAH, S/o Late A Rangaiah, Aged about 78 Years Occ Business, R/o Flat No 501 PIot No HIG.575, Sri Sudershan Plaza, 6th phase KpHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 7 2. its-Managaing parrner SRI y V RAGHUNANDAN, M/s SRLVENKATESHWARA INFITA, 19p _by S/o. Sri.Y.C. Rao, Aged about 48 years Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 6-3 -596/ 63/8, Naveen Nagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad 04. SRI ALP RANGA RAO, S/o Sri Subba Rao, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Buqiness, R/o H No 4-84, Surararri Colony,.Ranga Reddy District. M/S LAASYASRI DEVELOPERS Rep by its Managing partner SRI KOTTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO S,ro K Satyanarayana, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o H No 1-7-9L9/A/2 Ram Nagar Hyderabad. SRI G PULLA RAO, S/o Sri Tirupathaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot.No.463 and 464/A, Flat.No.402, Sri Rama Heavens, Madhavapuri Hills. PJR Enclave Ameenpur, Chandanagar Hyderabad. its Managing partner SRI KORRAPATI SUBASH BABU, M/S VIJAY SAI PROJECTS 19p 9y_ S/o K.Prabhakar Rao, Aged about 3B years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat.No.205, Sai Casile Apartments, 6th phase KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 72. SRI GEHLOT RAMESH CHOWDARY, S/o Ruparam Chowdary, tg"g 9!"_r_t 44years, Occ: Business, R/o.MIG 22, Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase-II Hydernagar, Hyderabad 85. | , & 13. M,/s vAsuDEvA coNsrRucrro\ Rep by its Managing Paftner SRI TI] S/o. T.Hanimi Reddy, Aged about 48 Years, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat. No.402, TSR Reddy Residef Eenadu Colony Kukatpally. 1cy, s TYAGURA SRINIVAS REDDY, ...PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.10 TO 22 1 2 3 And THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanga a at Hyderabad. SRI PATIMEDI JAGAPATHI (DIE Respondent No.3 is the LR. ) SRI PATIMEDI NARSING RAO S/o. Late Sri. Patimedi Jagapathi ra( ) Aged about 47 years, Occ:Business R/o. 15-31-V-VSSS/620,Flat No. 62] Vasavi Sri Signature, Medchal-Malka] 0, igiri District ...RESPONDENTS/ JO TCO PROMISE MEMO FILED BY HE 3 RE DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT TTONERS AND THE

1. complaint on 26.4.2076 against several p It is further submitted that the fath{r of the Respondent NO.3 filed rsons including the petitioners + herein, before the CCS Hyderabad basing was registered vide FIR.No.102/2016 fol 464, 406, and 506 r/w.l2op of IPC. Con! he is managing partners of PBS DeveloO! the amounts by the complainant who's I Respondent NO.3 decided to invest the I home town kukatpally and on discussion,,J No.1, and after verification ot documents i Ac.10.00 gts, out of Ac.28.24 gts, i on the said complaint a crime ' offences under section 418, ents of the complaint are that :rs with an intention to invest {espondent NO.3 father along mounts and on their research vith one Pandu who is accused respet of land to an extent of n SY.NO.14512 situated at Hydernagar village Balangar Mandal, and the documents produced by A.Pandu showing that he is the owner of Ac.3.36 gts and the proceeding of MRO Balangar, vide No.B/45/20L2.Dt.26.3.20t2, on the name of B. Rajendra kuma r, which discloses the Joint owners of land to an extent of ac.3.15 gts which stands on the name of B.Raejdrakumar and Galaiah and on Trusting the documents decided to purchase the land for a considbration of Rs.3.2 crores on installment and entered into the oral agreement which was subsequenily reduced in writing on 01.12.2012 after making payment of Rs.93,00,000/- through cheque .against acknowledgment of Pandu, Vinod Kumar paresh, and subsequent agreement of sale the understanding between Respondent NO.3 and Respondent No.2 called pandu and, Balakrishna to their residence and issued cheque for a tune of Rs.10,0Q,000/- on the name of Vinod Kumar Paresh subsequently under different dates the total amount of Rs.325.5 lakhs to vinod Kumar Paresh and A.pandu. Thereafter, Respondents found that several suits are pending and some documents were fabricated and with malafide intention executed several registered documents in favor of v.srinivas, Lakshminarsamma and several others and having known all the things with dishonest intention received Rs.3.25 crores and when Respondent No.3 father requested to return back the said amount without any profits they went on prolonging the matter and requested to take necessary action. It further submitted that the petitioners

2. CRLP.No.8519/2016 see(ing to quash the proceedings FIR.No.102/2016. The said proceedings are pending now.

3. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the said criminal proceedings Respondent No.3 father who is the comprainant herein, died on 03.OL2OZ|,leaving behind Respondent No.3 as a legal J I p-' heir as such Respondent NO.3 filed Respondent NO.3. I.A.No.7/2022 to bring as Proposed

4. It is submitted that during the Ii etime of father of Respondent No.3 a Memorandum oF understanding was entered between him and Bhaskar Goud i.e., Accused No.3. In ursuance of the said he also entered the compromise with the petitioners also a separate memorandum of understanding was ex cuted by father of Respondent No.3 when Respondent NO.2 was alive $ubsequently inview of the said Memorandum of understanding Responpent No.3 arso accepting and now Respondent also executed the mem randum of compromise infavor of the petitioners as such as per ttre ter s of the compromise by way of Memorandum of understanding Respon ent No.3 giving consent for quashing the proceedings in FIR.No.102l 016 dt.26.04.2016, subject of this criminal petition. I U

5. It is submitted that however, on t community people, well-wishers both th consent to compromise the matter Respondent No.3 do not want to co furthermore, inlight of the elders, wellwi person and also defacto-com plaina nt woul (Both the parties) permanent residence o the parties intend to file the present petit permission of this Hbn'ble Cou Complainant/Respondent No.3 not at all i furthermore, Respondent No.3 intend to case with due, prior permission to this Hon e intervention of local elders, parties intend to and given hereby to close ; the case, tinue and contest the case hers, intervention the injured like to close the matter as all nearby localities. Hence both on with a joint memo seeking to close the case. terested in pursuing the case withdraw the case, close the 'ble Court. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased '-r QUASH the crime FIR.No.10212016 for the offences under section 418, 464, 406 and 506 r/w.l2oB of IPC against the Petitioners/Accused No.10 to 22 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice. Hence loint Memo PLACE: HYderabad DATED:08.04.2025 For TEJA HOMES PVT. L'i'. fiuu**-- PetilifHtfl-sh||& bir o ctc r p- e^ a^ fi'/' Petitioner No.4 rEITI}Sru YENKAl ESIIY'IARA INFRa Itanaging Partnx Petitio er No.7 Forilh.SRlCHALLAC0NSiRut,i,,,." torftl'/s'SRt MANI SAtav;' - d^ petitionerll{B1g}gPet{ner petirioner No.3 llanaging Padner FcrlUs' SWAPNA SURYA OEVEtortn- --"'--'1 o, l*i.*- Al' :xt^" Petitioner No.5 ifrgingPrttnt fetU,r, PERFEcT INFRA n-&B,a *&l lilanaging Pntaer Petitioner No.6 Fot [1h' LAASYA sRl oEVELOPERS /A H 0-h LL"l\- w 'MaiaoingPadner Petitioner No.B Petitioner No.9 Forit!. VUAY IPROJEGTS a-) L-L' Petitioner No.10 \ Petitioner No.11 Jtlltr1trqi66 Pa*nar Petitioner No.12 t [ii""( n\elfo lJrL- r Petitioners Cou Counsel for the Respondent No.3 No.3 For llls. VASUDEV A CONSTRUCTIONS ,-l v..&. Managing Partter Petitioner No.13 OL.'' Respondent /Defacto Complainant HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TE]LANGANA::AT, HYDERABAD l.A.No.'tN CRLP.No.8057 5022 2016 Between: : I I 1 i I l ! A I 2 3 4 5 1 t Smt.B.Lakshmi Narasamma, Wo. Aged about 78 years, OccuPation: R/o. Plot No. 39, Maheshwarinagar, Hyderabad - 500018. Sri Late B.Dasarath Housewife, Bharatnagar Colony Smt B.Lakshmi, Wo. Sri Late B.Sl Aged about 75 years, OccuPdtion: R/o. Plot No.28, Maheshwarinagal Bharatnaghr Colohy, HYderabad'1 rankaraiah Housewife .500018. Smt B.Uma Rani, Wo. SriB.Pentl Aged about 63 years, OcCuPation: R/o.F-35, Madhura Nagar, HVderl Housewife, bad - 500038. SriB.Srinivas S/o Sri B.Dasarath Aged about 50 years, OccuPation:, R/o. Plot No 39 Maheshwarinagar Bharathnagar ColonY, HYderaba( Business - 500018. Smt. B.Veeramani, Wo. SriB Pral Aged about 57 years, OccuPation: R/o. Plot No.241, H.No.2-22-17311 Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 5OOO72. bhakar Housewife \, Jayanagar, ... Petitionersl Accused No.S to 9. And The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosec High Court, HyderaQad. utor, Petitioner No.1 g 56'U B uil o3 r( xrltJL)a.S Fetitioner No.2 ts "SzoSoq$ P titioner No.5 Petitioner No.4 .n lS UtAO- Fo-tr.,,- Petitioner No.3 a Respondent No.3/ LR of the De-facto Complainpnt.

2. SriPatimediJagapathi(Died) 2 ... Respondent No.2/ De-facto Complainant. 3 Sri.Patimedi Narsing Rao, S/o. Late Sri.patimediJagapathi Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.H.No.10-3-7313, P.No.98 Lane No.2, Street No.3, Teachers Colony, East Marredpally Hyderabad. ... Respondent No.3/ LR of De-facto Complainant. JOINT COMPROM ISE MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENT No.3 May it please your Lordship, 1. lt is submifted that my father the deceased Respondent No.2, lodged a police report dated 26.04.2016 against several persons including the petitioners herein, before the central crime station, Hyderabad. on the basis of the said report a crime was registered by the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, in F.l.R.No.1O2t2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 41g, 420, 464 and 506 read with 120-8 of the then Indian penal Code, 1g60. ln the said case the petitioners herein were arrayed as Accused No.5 to 9. z ufuf,A|:;2 Petitioner No.1 t E ua? Petitioner No.2 n lJ. u wo. l}<ah^ Petitioner No.3 B S- NV",s Petitioner No.4 g. ^Sac.t, ofui Petitioner No.5 Respondent No. 3t LR of the De-facto Complainant. 3

2. lt is submitted that the contents df the said report are that he is the managing partners of pBS Devglopers and his son i.e., the respondent no.3 herein is a mechanicar engineer riving in Austraria for the last 13 years by the date of ttre pJfice report. They having done some research in their home town Kukatpally, Hyderabad, they found safe to invest there and they were introduced to a person by name O te19V through his famity friend M.Qatakrishna. After speaking to tn..,i'.,ifiyoo."3!o9o to purchase the lan admeasuring Acs.10.00 Gts., Gts., in Sy.No.14 lL of Hyderanagar Village, o$.?p,r1 :uj,,.gf Balanagar Mandal, Ranga ReOOy Oi rict (now lrr!edchal-Mal(ajgiri '1Hr{14"Y... Di6trict). 3' lt is submitted that as per the said report they were shown some documents and the two proceedings isqued by the MRO, Balanagar Mandal both in file Nos.B/4St2012 dateq 19.03 ;2012 and 26.03.2012, as per which Sri A.Pandu is owner of lan admeasuring Acs.3.36 Gts., who,,i-s-,99911.se4 Nq.1, and Sri B.Rajenda umar, who is accused No.2, and A.Galaiah are thee joint owners o land admeasuring Acs.3.15 Gts., in $y.No.145/2 situated at Hydernagar Village, Balangar Mandal. They decided to purchase the rand for a consideration of Rs.3.25 crores and entered into an agreement dated 01 .12.2012 0n payment of Bog,AtuM B 9&Z Petitioner No.1 Petitioner No.2 fg u*nc\R""^ Petitioner No.3 B S.i")va Petitioner No.4 B "SBoSsu Petitioner No.5 R pondent No.3/ LR of the De-facto Complainant. I ::4:: Rs.93 Lakhs and after payment of entire agreed amounts of Rs.3.25 crores is paid under different dates to Vinod Kumar Parekh and A.Pandu and thereafter he came to know that the proceedings issued by the MRO, Balanagar Mandal both in file Nos.B/4512012 were set aside by the appellate authority i.e., RDO, Rajendranagar in File No.Ct2841 t2O1 5 dated 31 .08.201 5.

4. lt is submitted that as per the said report on consideration the documents produced by A.Pandu showing that he is the owner of Acs 3.3ti GtS., and the prbceeding of MRO Batangar, vide No.Bl45l2012 D1.26.3.2012, on the name of B.Rajendrakumar; which "rji'"' :r": ' ' '' ' : discloses the Joint owners of lzind to an extent of Acs.3.15 Gts., which stands:on the name of B.Raejdrakumar and Galaiah and on trusting the documents and them they decided to purchase the land foi a consideration of Rs.3.25 Crores and paid total amount of Rs.3.25 Crores under different dates to Vinod Kumar Parekh and A.Pandu. Furthdr, they also came to know that the petitioners herein are claiming the land admeasuring Acs.7.02 Gts., under registered documents purchased in the year 2001, more than 11 years before the alleged agreement daled 01 .1 2.2012. B "r&&SerM Petitioner No.1 '1>. t:) aa2 ---6 Pe$tioner No.2 n g!. l.rt,t< t Kar-.. Petitioner No.3

9.9; wva4 Petitioner No.4 e "S&o-\:e:fu Petitioner No.5 Respondent No.3/ LR of the De-facto Complainant. 5

5. lt is submitted that as per the d found that several suits are pendil respondent no.2 father of the responde] the said amount without any profits b] matter and therefore requested to take and one Bharskar Goud, who is arrayq raid report thereafter, they also ng and when the deceased rt No.3 requested to return back :t they went on prolonging the necessary action against them d as Accused No.3, was acting as GPA.of the rival title hoiders of the st 6' lt is Turther submitted that th1 GRLP.Nci.80 57'of 2016 before this Hon p1gcg*edipgq in F|R.No.102/2016, co1 recoidl the 'inherent contradictions i1 complainant, thdt even going by the col are the owhers and possessors of the 11 r': -.,':' . r atjj:i: Deeds, mentioned in page 3 of the comp FlR, by the year 2001 and entered into the Developers, who were aiso arrayed tfrai tney have nothing to do with th1 between the De-facto Complainant an( execution of receipt of consideration q disclose any cause of action much Petitioners. Further, the registered q .t r o3,"l6a'ag Petitioner No.1 B'd"2 Petitioner No.2

8.4^vwua-j Petitioner No,4 B "S&fu€-r.$l Petitioner No.5 rid land. : petitioners filed the above 'ble Court seeking to quash the rtending interalia, bringing on r the case of the de-facto nplainants case the Petitioners lnd by virtue of registered Sale rlaint at (a) to (i) annexed to the Development Agreements with as Accused Nos.10 to 22 and e alleged Agreement of Sale Ithe Accused Nos.1 and 2 or rnd hence, the FIR does not ess any offence against the t locuments under which, the B. u^a P",-1, Petiti ner No.3 "1 Res ondent No.3/ LR of the De-facto Complainant. ::6:: Petitioners admittediy purchased are Fourteen years anterior to the allegedtransactionoftheDe-factoComplainant.Balakrishna S/o. Jagadeeshwara Rao, who is said to have cheated and introduced Accused Nos.1 and 2 is admittedly a relative of the De-facto Complainant,andheisnotarrayedasanAccusedatali,whichspeaks volumes about the bogus nature and character of the Complaint'

7. lt is submitted that this H<in'ble court was pleased to grant interim order in the above CRLP.No.8057 ol2016 and the same is still pending and !h9 i1t9{m older granted by this Hon'ble Court is in subsistence' During pelqency of the aforesaid CRLP'No'8057 of 2016 the Respondent No.2 who gave complaint for and on behalf of tle Respondent No.3, died on 03.01.2021' leaving behind Respondent No.3ashislegalheirassuchRespondentNo.3filedl.A.No.ll2o22to come on record as Respondent No.3, which is also still pending'

8. lt is submitted that during lifetime of the deceased Respondent No.2,fatheroftheRespondentNo.3,attheinstanceofthecommunity elders and well-wishers entered into an understanding with Bhaskar Goud i.e., Accused No.3, to settle all the issues including with regard to the payments made by Respondent No'2 and was therefore not interested to prosecute the above case in terms of the settlement and has undertook to co-operatg for immediate closure of the above FlR. B -&{+5tua2 Petitioner No.1 b.9zrwtJ"'s Petitioner No.4 TA'0€ )L4J- Petitioner No.2 @.11u",.o, G.*^ Petitioner No.3 i3,rSVk$D,h)--6 Petitioner No.5 .l o.3l Respondent LR of the De-facto Complainant. 7 However, before the required steps are taken in that regard the the Respondent No.3 herein respondent no.2 died unfortunately an filed the above LR application in the ab ve case only for the purpose of completing the task of quashing the cr inal case in FlR.No.10212016 dated26.04.2016 as agreed in view of t e settlement

9. lt is relevant to submit here that econd petitioner is also called AS, Lax i Narasamma and so also fi h Petitioner is also called as cted as such in their Aadhar Vija ,,Laxmi ,and their,names are refl ,i Cards. Aadhar Cards of the Petitioners and the Respondent No.3 duly signed by them are filed herewith , tt is su5inittdflinrt tn" dispute is redominantly,a civil dispute as 10. to the payment.of amounts to the Re pondents No.2 and 3 by the persons who.received from them and he deceased respondent no.2 and the respondent no.3 having reali that Mr.Bhaskar Goud never acted ag th_e-QPA Holder of the Petitio ers herein and the petitioners transaction of tfe Respondents rok to get the criminal case 6.04.2016 be quashed in the ties are filing this joint rnemo the proceedings lagainst. the eased respondent no.2 nor the have also. nothing to dq with real estate ] no.2 and 3 and therefore they undertl registered in FlR.No.102t2O16 dated ! interest of justice. Hence, both the Oa1 seeking this Hon'ble Court to quash petitioners in as much as neither tfre Oef ts arg{gAtr4, R r,42 Petitioner No.1 B 9>\rLva,S . Petitioner No.2 Petitioner No.4 BrSZot;o$u Petitioner No.5 Y1' a'^o'4"""ni Petitioner No.3 ondent No.3/ Re LR bf the De-facto Complainant. ::8:: respondent no.3 are interested to prosecute the FlR.No. rc2t2}16 dated 26.A4.2016 in view of the settlement. The Respondent no.3 also, in view of the settlement of the claim for money, hereby declare that neither he nor his father has nothing to do with the land admeasuring Ac.10.00 Gts., out of the totalextent of the land admeasuring Acs.28.24 Gts., in Sy.No.14512 of Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal (now Kukatpally Mandal), Ranga Reddy District (now Medchal-Malkjagiri District) or any other lands in the.aforesaid survey number and has complete agreement for quashing of the FlR.No.102/2016 dated

26.04.2016.

11. lt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court qay be pleased to take on record thrisabeve Joint Compromise memo pn record and consequently quash the proceedings in F1R.No.10212016 registered on "B'sg^zql-<- Jrhd the file of the Central Crime Station, Police Station, Hyderabad, as against the petitioners/Accused No.5 to 9 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit fair, proper in the circumstances of the case, and also in the larger interest of Justice. Bo;&J,Stu42/ Petitioner No.1 b.svv,ival Petitioner No.4 B a&2 Petition6ffilo.2 n 'l!.r:wct Ytx-tt Petitioner No.3 g"SHouosl) Petitioner No.5 Counse or .--.t> e Petittoners Resp ndent No.3/ LR of the De-facto Complainant. Counsel for the den No.3 Place: Hyderabad Dale:28-03-2025