The High Court · 2025

Bhameetha Burla, Wo.Sri Raj Kiran Anukatalla D/o. B.Sainath, aged about 29 years, Occ p.vt Employee, R/o. Eeco Valley, West Block 206, Road No.12, [/ladhavpuri Hills lrliyapur, Opp. Janapriya Nile Valley Ameenpur, Sangareddy District ...RESPONDENT/STATE ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to CC.No.2B2 of 2022 arising out of Crime No.149 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate (PDM) at. Sangareddy, Sangareddy District and quash the proceedings in CC.No.282 oI 2022. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 in CC.No.2B2 of 2022 arising out of crime No.149 of 2022 on the file of the court of Judicial First class Magistrate, (PDM) Sangareddy, Sangareddy District, pending disposal of the criminal petition. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Between: Bhameetha Burla, Wo.Sri [qj Kirgn Anukatalla D/o. B.Sainath, Occ. pvt Employee, R/o.. Eeco Valley, West Block 206, Road No..l2, Madhavpuri Hills Miyapur, Opp. Janapriya Nile Valley Ameenpur, Sangareddy District. ' ...PETITIONER/RSP No. 2 AND

1. The State .o-f relangana represented by its public prosecutor High court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana. ..RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 2. Anukatalla jaj{rel, S/o Ravinder Aged about 34 years, Occ. private E_mployee, R/o. D.No.1-7-3221201 Revenue Colony, Hanumakonda town And district.

3. Anukatalla favrnder, _S/oCh-andermouli Aged about 55 years, Occ. {.g1i9ultyq, R/o. D.No.1-7-322t201 Revenue C6lony, Hanumakon'da town AnO district 505 004 Revenue Colony, Hanumakonda town Ani aistriit 505 004

4. Anukatalla Rajya Laxmi, Wo.Ravinder Aged 57 years, R/o. D.No.1-7_322/201 5 Bellapu ,Sandya, Wo-sandeep Kumar Aged about 33 years, occ. Drugs Safety As^sociate, Mitocon Bi6 pharma, Begumpet R/o.'D.Nd.j_7_3221rd1 Revenue Colony, Hanumakonda town And dislrict'SOS OO+

6. Anukatalla Soumya, D/o.Ravinder, Rlo D.No.1-7-3221201 Hanumakonda town And district 506 004 Revenue Colony, ...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 to 5 Petition under Section 359 (6) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lrilemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to grant permission to compound the offenee under Sections 49g-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 DP Act in CC No. 282 ot 2022 arising out of Crime No 149 of 2022 on the file of court of the Judicial First class Magistrate (pDlr/) at Sangareddy. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 , Petition under Section 359 (2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise and quash the proceedings in CC No.282 of 2022 arising out of Crime No 149 of 2022 on the file of court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (PDM) at Sangareddy. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ajay Kumar lt/adisetty, Advocate for the Petitioners, Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri fviadiraju prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2o24 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.5736 of 2022 COMMON ORDER:- The Criminai Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.282 of 2022 arising out of Crime No.149 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PDM), at Sangareddy, Sangareddy District (for short, "the trial Court").

2. Heard Mr.Ajay Kumar Madisetty, Iearned counsel for the e petitioners, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Mr.Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for unofhcial respondent No.2.

3. During the course of hearing, both the learned counsel submit that petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and unofficial respondent No.2 have compromised the matter and accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 ol 2024 are hled seeking permission of this Court to compound the offences registered against tl-rem for the offences under Section 498-A of I.P.C., Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prol'ribition Act and seek to set aside the impugned judgment. So far as 2 petitioncr No.S/accused No.5 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners states that inadvcrtently, accused No.5 is made as party to this Criminal Petition. Therefore, he seeks to .not press'this Criminal Petitron in respect of petitioner No.5.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by filing the copy of Demand Draft dated O2.O8.2O24, drawn on State Bank of India, Adityanagar Branch, Hyderabad submit; that an amount of Rs.6,O0,O0O/- is deposited in favour of respondent No.2; previously an amount of Rs.1O,OO,OOO/- was deposited in favour of respondent No.2. Therefore, in total, the petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- in favour of respondent No.2 towards fuli and final settlement at the time of obtaining Decree of Divorce from the Court concerned.

5. In pursuance of the order dated 29.10.2O24 passed by this Court, petitioner Nos. 1 to 4/accused Nos.l to 4 and respondent No.2/complainant are identified by their respective counsel before the Secretary, Legal Services Committee. Petitioner No.S/accused No.5 did not appear on the said date and therefore, her identihcation could not be done. J Today, Unofhcial respondent No.2, along with her counsel 6 is present before this Court and asserted the terms of compromrse

7. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending. Having regard to the enabling provision of Section 359(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previouslv known as Section 32O of Criminal procedure Code) permission is accorded and the compromise is recorded. The memo shall form part of this order.

8. Accordingly, I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2024 and this Criminal Petition are allowed. Resultantly, the proceedings initiated against petitioner Nos.l to 4/accused Nos.l to 4 in C.C.No.2g2 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PDM), at Sangareddy, Sangareddy District are hereby quashed. So far as petitioner No.S/accused No.S is concerned, this Criminal Petition is clismissed as ,not pressecl,. _ . . Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in t Petition, shal1 stand closed. he Criminal ,. ..- ._ ,i' Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate (pDM) at Sangareddy. 2. The Station House Officer, Ameenpur police Station, Sangareddy District ' Iffi":"?:J:r3,:fl'0"" Prosecutor, Hish court ror the state or reransana at 4. One CC to Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, Advocate [OPUC] tTiat r . =1!?ryTrEtr{E='- . lii8"i ;i -l- aarrlta-tFrl.lGr ffi,*ryn' 5 6 one CC to Sri Madiraiu Prabhakar Rao' Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies (Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise) VrVgh .*;;*:, ,;i.:'i%.. 1,,. - ..';I' Jq( I r i I t HIGH COURT DATED: 1810212025 t COMMON ORDER l.A. NO: 1 AND 2 OF 2024 IN/AND CRLP.No.5736 ot 2022 Y ,-i IJ t\e: STA I € ;'. 1 2 6 APn 2t25 .iir::l' , t- I ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION MEMORANDUM OF,EiTL.MISC. PETITION GTTLED u/sEcTrdii 32s{rF€RJ€}- 3 s9 G) u rusj IN THE HIGH COURT Or pOttrrrURE Or rnraNGANA AT :: HYDERAtsAD ot 2024 5736 0F 2022 I.A.. No. 'n -' '/,' '':::lin Criminal Petition lrio; 'i i .:L l'{ 'l:1, Between: 1) Anukatalla Rajkiran S/o. Ravinder, aged about 34 Years ' Occ. Private empldyee, Il,/o. D No. L-7+?-42 Revenue Colony, Hanumakonda ToiTfi Hanamkkonda District 506 004 ::: 01, i 2) Anukatalla Ravinder S7o. Chund"t-ouli, aged about 57 1'$'rs l{,/o. D No. 1-7-324201', I Revenue Colony, Hanumakonda Tor'rrlt Hanamkkonda bitt.i.t 506 oo4 i 3) Anukatalla RajYa Laxmi, I W/o. Ravinder, aged about 50 Yeats I I{o. D No. 1"7'324201', Revenue Colol'i', fianumakonda Town, HanamkkondalDistrict 506 004 Bellapu Sandya, W/o' Sandeep litrmar 4) Aged about 33 years, I{o' DNo'1'-7-322/20'L' Revenue ColonY, Hanumakonda Towrr Hanamkkonda District 506 004 5) Anukatalla SoumYa, D/o. Ravinder, aged about Years I{,/o. D No. 1'-7-324201., Revenue ColonY, Hanumakonda Town Hanamkkonda District 506 004 AND .. Petitioners/ Accused No. 1 to 5 The State of Telanana 1) Rep. bv Public Prosecutor Ullh iourt at Hyderabad for the Statc of Telangana ' Yk ^"rfl- B ) 2) Bharneeha Burla, {o.Raj Kirarr;r\ntJcatalia- ,'- 6/o. B. Sainath, Occ. Private ernployce,-ilo.Ecco Valley West Block 206, Road No.12, Madhavpuri Hills :-l Miyapur, Opp. janapriyir Nile Valley', Ameenpur Sangareddy Distriit ....Ros1rondent No'/De-f acto Conrplainant oINT N,IEMO It is submitted that the Petitioners herein filed the above Quash 1) Petition seeking to quash the p.o.""ditg' in C'C' No' 282 of 2022 arisigt.. out of Crime No. 149 ol 2022 on the (ile of court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (PDM) at Sar-rgareddy reg;tcred uuder Sections 498-4 IPC and l. Section 3 & 4 DP Act, wherein the Pc ilioners are figured as Accused 1 to 5, questioning the registration of the cr' rc along with CC Proceedings In CC No. 282 of 2022, the Petitioners hereid tliled this quash Petition and seeking indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to invoke its inherent iurisdiction U/sec. 482 of Cr.P.C and the same is pendiiig. 2) It is submitted that at the inteiwene of both the familv clders and i well wishes, all the parties includin{ the De-facto Complainant' have come to a conclusion to settle the dispirtes by ttay of settlement that the petitioners has agreed to Pay a t..,t of Rt'16,00,000/- to the 2"d respondent/ i I defacto complainant as full and final settlement i'e', at the time of getting i the decree of divorce from the courtland also both the parties have agreed all the disputes between them havi beeh settled fully and finally in all manners and they have declare thatlno party shall not claim any rights in i any manner against each other in future including monetary benefits/ maintenance amounts except by accepting the terms and conditions in FC Eu.r*rU..*B .t; 544 of 2022. Further the petitioners and the defacto complainant o. ompromised by executing an joirrt affidavit signed.by the petitioners d the defacto complainant is also filed herewith fol kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Further the petitioncrs and the defactc, complainant are compromised by executing an joint a,l'ficlavit signed by the petitioners and the defacto complainant is also file<t herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Hence this joint memo. Hyderabad, Dale:78.07,2024 Counsel for the %6:b ( Anukatalla Rajkiran) ( Anukatalla Ravinder ) + ' R,,q;*'4't^- a *.wdfaq (Anukatalla RajYa Laxmi) 9"&": (Bellapu SandYa) &aN^'-''r (Anukatalla SoumYa) Bk^"^rr$.l8 ( Bhameetha Burla) Counsel for I e resPon ent no.2