✦ High Court of India · 07 Aug 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 07 Aug 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

07 Aug 2025

Bench

V ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSRON V ADDITIONAT METROPOLITAN SESSION

Length

1,751 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §482 Indian Penal Code §307

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 S.C No. 226 of 2022 pending on the file of lV Additional Metropolitan Sessron Judge. Hyderabad. l.A. NOs: 1OF 2025 AND 2 OF 202 5 l.A. NO: 1AF 2025 Between: Syed Abrar Hussarn, S/o Syed Ather Hussain Aged about 26 Years, Occ. Hotel management Taco bell Restaurant, R/o Plot No.102, Paramount Residency, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad T.G. ...Petitioner/Defacto Complainant AND H.No 7-2-1607/C. Allauddin Koti, Sanath Nagar. Hydera rad T.G.

1. Sohail Khan S/o Waheed Khan, Aqe 24 Vearc. Occ I rrvate emolovee. R/o 2 Sye{ Maleed S/o Syed Ghouse. Aged about .26 yea s Occ Drrver. R/o H 3 !t!h.am m^eq Jaiz-an, S/o Mohammed Osman, Age ao:ut 25 years, Occ No. 7-2-1602/C Attauddin Koti, San;th Nagar Hydtiraba i T G Student, SRT-223. Sanathnagar, Hyderabad T.G. - ... Re s pondenUPetitioner 4. The State of Telangana . Represented by its public pror;rcutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ... Res o rn de nURes pondent . Petition under Section 359(6) of BNSS praying that I the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition lhe High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to file the compromise I),tition in view of the Compromise between the parties in connection with the S ( ). No 226 ol 2022, pending on the file of lV Additional Metropolitan Session JU ige, Hyderabad, for the offences Under Section 307, R/w 34 lpC in the interest ( f iustice. l.A. NO:zOF 2025 Between: Syed Abrar Hussain. S/o Syed Ather Hussain Aged aboL t 26 years, Occ. Hotel management Taco bell Restaurant, R/o plot No.102 paramount Residency, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad T.G. ...Petitioner/t)( facto Complainant AND

1. TheStateof Telanoana,, Represented byits Public prosr:futor HighCourtat Hyderabad. H No. 7-2-1607/C. Altauddin Kotr Sinath Niagar. Hyderarx d T G. ... Respor tdenUCom plainant 2. SohailXhan,, S/o Waheed- Khan Age. 24 yeas. Occ . Fr ./ate employee. R/o 3 Sye{ tltajgg! Syed Ghouse. Aged about 26 years )cc Driver, R/o H 4 Mohammed Faizan, S/o, Mohammed Osman,_Age abot t 25 years. Occ No. 7-2-16O2tC. Allauddin Kotr. Sanrth Nagar. Hyd6raba,i f .G. Student. SRT-223. Sanathnagar Hyderabad T G. " -S{q ... Petitioners;/ {ccused No.1 to 3 Petition under Section 359(2) of BNSS praying that ir rhe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, l3 High court may be pleased to Record the petitroner to compromise for quashrrrrl thelriminal case agarnst Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and quash the proc(x.dings against the Respondent Nos 1 to 3/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C. No. 226 <,1 2Oi2, p6nding on the file of lV Additionat Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderaba j This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the fvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri lvlohammed Afzal Pasha, Advocate for the Petitioners and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and of Sri Mohd.Abdul Kareem Khan, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUK qRAMJI l.A.Nos.1 AND 2 OF 202 5 ln/And CRIMINAL PETITION No.8927 OF 2l'25 COMMON ORDER . This Criminal Petition is filed under Section S2B ol Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,BN{ir:i, 2023,) seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners-r rccused Nos.1 to 3 in s.c.No.226 oI 2022 on the file of the learned lV Adl tional Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 1c 3 in the carendar case registered for the offence punishable under Secrion 307 read with 34 of lndian Penal Code.

3. Heard Mr,lVlohammed Afzal pasha, learnec counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Iearnec Additional public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.'r-state arrd Mr.Mohd.Abdur Kareem Khan, learned counsel for the responr ,nt No.2lde_facto complainant.

4. Pending this petition, the parties have entered irt: the compromise and, accordingly, respondent No.2 ldeJacto complaini rnt filed l.A.Nos..1 and 2 of 2025 with the prayer to permit them to ente,r into compromlse I .wI 2 lvlR,Jr IA.Notl and 2 aJ 2025 in/and Cr/.P.No. 8927 of 2025 and by recording the settlement to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.C.No.226 of 2022

5. This Court vide ordet daled 17 '07 '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 31 '07 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 settlemenUcompromise. 6 I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and Perused the materials on record.

7. Having considered the allegations, the nature of charged offences and taking into account the amicable settlement behveen the parties' in the light of the dictum s in Gian Singh v' State of Puniab and anotherl and Anil Mishra v. state of lJ.P.z; State of Madhya Pradesh v' Laxmi Narayan and othersj, this Court is of the considered view that quashment of the impugned proceedings in view of the seftlement by | 2012 (1o) scc 303 ' 2024 INSc 189 3 zors 1s; scc oae \ 3 NlRrr

1...1.N0t.1 and 2 ol2025 in/ and Cri.l'.Nct. 8927 of 202 5 exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.l1ll:i of BNSS, 2023, would be in the interest of justice.

8. Accordingly, LA.Nos.'l and 2 of 2025 are allo\ (,d. Consequently, all the proceedings in S.C.No.226 of 2022, on the file of the learned lV Additional [vletropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad, er ) hereby quashed against the petitioner/accused. I ln the above terms, the Criminal Petition is dispcs,:d of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall :;tand closed SD/. U.SUDHA ASSI ;TANTREGISTRAR G iECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, ] ]ne lV Additional Metropotitan Session Judge, Hyderab a J. 2. The Station House Officer, Ban.jara Hi s poliCe Staijon. Fy lerabad City 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State o; -elangana 4 One CC to Sri Mohammed Afzal pasha, Advocate [OpUt.] 5. One CC to Sri tuohd.Abdul Kareem Khan, Advocate IOFL C] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] ABK /PSt, o\ Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Comprrmise s HIGH COURT DATED: 0710912025 !- \ ---. I COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos. 1 AND 2 OF 2025 ln/And CRLP.No.8927 of 2025 i I li,Ptitli { t- 2 1 .,v Tr .s"$s \ U ,r t': I 1 J,' t, ALLOWING THE I,A.Nos. 1 AND 2 OF 2025 AND DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION lo[f a' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ]UDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA i.A No: of 2025 CRL.P.No. of 2O25 Between:- 1). Sohail Khan, S/o Waheed Khan, Age: 24 years, Occ : Private employee, R/o H.No. 7 -2-1607 lC, Allauddin Koti, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad T.G. 2). Syed Majeed, S/o Syed Ghous;e, Aged about : 26 years, Occ : Driver, R/o H. No. 7-2-L6021C, Allauddin Koti, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad T.G. 3).Mohammed Faizan S/o Mohammed Osman Age about 25 years, Occ : Student, SRT-223, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad T.G. . Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 3. AND 1).The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ..Respondent / Complainant 2). Syed Abrar Hussain S/o Syed Al.her Hussain Aged about 26 Years, Occ: Hotel management Taco bell Restaurant, Vo Plot No.102, Paramount Residency, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad T.G. Respondent/Defacio-Complainant MEMORANDUM OF JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES il2tu Contd...P/2 \- \ --=1

1. It is submitted that, this quash petition is filed praying tlti,; Hon'ble court to quash the S.C. No. 226 of 2022 against the petitioners / A-1 to I 3 pending on the file of Hon'ble IV Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, H'a lerabad, in which Petitioners names are shown as accused No.1 to 3.

2. Whereas due to some mis-understa nding disputes al( se between the petitioners and Respondent No. 2 herein and now both of Lhem decided to compromise the matter.

3.) The respondent No.2 has filed a criminal complaint bearing :.I'R. No. 840 oF 2020 dated: L7-12-2020, the said FIR is registered for the offencer; punishable under section 307 R/w 34 IPC, and after completing investigation charrl'. sheet was filed against all the petitioners/A-l to A-3 herein and numbered as S 'C. No. 226 of 2022 and cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/se: section 307 R/w 34 IPC by the Hon'ble IV Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, [{"derabad against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3.

4. That the petitioners submit that as the disputes that ar:;e between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 is resolved, respondent No 'l Coesn't want to continue the criminal proceedings as such the present quash petitc 1 is flled by the parties praying this Hon'ble court to quash the S.C. No. 226 of 202)-, pending on the file of Hon'ble IV Additionat Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad It is submitted that, in view of the above submissions this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the S.C. No. 226 of 2022, pending on the file oF Hon'ble IV Additional Metropolitan Sesslon Judge, Hyderabad, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, for which the respondent No.2 has no objection. Date: -06-2025. Place: Hyderabad. Petitioner No.1/A-1 Counse the petitioners. I Petitioner No.2 /A-2 l;r= Petitiorfr No.3 /A-3 d Respondent No.2/ Defacto complainant Counsel for Respondent No.2

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 1c 3 in the carendar case registered for the offence punishable under Secrion 307 read with 34 of lndian Penal Code.

1...1.N0t.1 and 2 ol2025 in/ and Cri.l'.Nct. 8927 of 202 5 exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.l1ll:i of BNSS, 2023, would be in the interest of justice.

2. Whereas due to some mis-understa nding disputes al( se between the petitioners and Respondent No. 2 herein and now both of Lhem decided to compromise the matter.

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Criminal Procedure