The High Court · 2025

... Respondents/Petitioners/Accused Petition under Section 359 r/w 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners/defacto complainant and injured person/LW- I and LW-2 to compound the offences punishable.under sections 120-B,201 and 307 IPC and section 25(1-8) of the Arms Act with the Respondents/Accused No.1 and 2 in s.c.No. 468 of 2023 on the file of the Vll Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 359(2) r/w 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to compound/compromise the offences between the deiacto complainant and injured person/LW-1 and LW-2 and the Peiitioners/Accused in S.C.No. 468 ol 2023 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused in S.C.No. 468 of 2023 on the file of the Vll Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in the interest ofjustice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of ^ Grounds of criminar petition rpon iearing the arguments of sri c sharan Reddy' Advocate for the petitioners and sri Jithender Rao "nd- Veerama'a, Additional pubric prosecutor on beharf of ttre Respondent No.1 and of Ms. Kiranmayee sandepudi, Advocate for the n."ponJ.t' *-o.' ,)0"""," complainant and Respondent No.3. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.A.Nos. 3 AN D 4oF 2025 In/And CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8038 0F 2025 coM MON ORDER This criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS) seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in S.C. No. 468 of 2023, on the file of the learned Vll Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the Sessions Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307,201' 120-B of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 and Section25(1B) of the lndian Arms Act' I have heard Mr. C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners,

3. Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State and Ms. Kiranmayee Sandepudi, learned counsel for respondent No.Zlde facfo complainant and respondent No.3.

4. Pending this petition, the parties have entered into the compromise and' accordingly, they moved l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 with the prayer to permit them to enter into compromise and by recording the settlement to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No. 468 of

5. This Court vtde order dated 03.07.2025 referred the parties to the High Court Legal Services Committee for identification and to verify the voluntarines- in arriving the settlement. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services 2 NrxJ LA.Nos. 3 aod 4 of 2025 n/and, Cd.P.No. 8038 of fr25 -\ committee, has submitted report dated.16 .07.2o2s stating that the parties were identified by their respective counsel and also on verification of Aadhar cards/ldentity cards and the enquiries reveabd that the partbs have wiilfufly and without coercion entered into setflemenUcompromise. 6 I have considered the submissions of the leamed counsel and perused the materials on record.

7. The allegations against the petitioners is that in the backdrop of car sale business on 19.05.2021 the petitioner No.l/accused No.1 allegedly obtained a knife from the petitioner No.2/accused No.2 and attacked the respondent No.3 (son of de facto amplainant) and caused bleeding injuries on the left arm and shoulder. Further the investigation revealed that the injury certificate has disclosed that the injured suffered simple injury.

8. Having regard to the settlement deed dated 26.06.2021 and the injury caused by the petitioner No.l, considering the nature of the injury and the seftlement entered between the parties, to restore harmony and a\oid unnecessary litigation, particularly since there is no overriding public interest involved, in the light of the dictums in Gian singh v. stafe of punjab and anothey' and Anil Mishra v. sfafe of rJ.p.2; state of Madhya pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and otherc3, this court is of the considered view that . ggashment of the impugned proceedings in view of the setflement by exercising | 2012 (1o) scc 303 ' 2024 INSC 189 3 zors 1s; scc ooe 3 NTRJ I.A-Nos. 3 ar,d 4 of 2025 in/and Crl.P.No. 8038 of 2025 jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.l528 of BNSS, 2023, would be in the interest of justice.

9. Acc-ordingly, l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 are allowed. Consequently, all proceedings in S.C. No. 468 of 2023, on the file of the leamed Vll Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2.

10. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSIST NT REGISTRAR " A I ,TTRUE COPYI' SECTION OFFICER To,

1. Vll Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Hyderabad' 2. The Chiei Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad 5. rn" itition House officer,thandrayanagutta Police Station' Hyderabad 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 5. One CC to S-ri C haran Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Ms. Kiranmayee Sardepudi, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUT] W ABK,/PSL Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise HIGH COURT DATED: 2210812025 I 1HE S rai o o. i) J 2 5 stP 2025 t Sirl fC!\ a ./. : j ! .{ .. COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos.3 AND 4 OF 2025 ln/And CRLP.No.8038 ol 2O25 ALLOWING THE l.A.Nos.3 AND 4 OF 2025 AND THE CR]MINAL PETITION \6 PE NFORCOMP Fo1 the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, E/IO INT MIS RO o t praye( thai this Hon,ble' Court may 'be between the defactci p ed, t lainant aad lnj ured person/LW _l & LW'2 and the '2023 on tlie file of the VIIMetrbpblitan lyh. ,h" proceddinfs 468:of 20,23 onthe file of the VII Meh<ipolitan ... Sessioiis rJudge, Hyderabad 'and petitioners/accused in S.C;No.' Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in the interest ofjustice. ,<9- Counsel for thI respondents/Accused 5 Counsel for the petitioneis/ Defacto complain'a1t : I 2 k HYDERABAD, DATE:ZI -6-202s

1.+

2. v-