The High Court · 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 quash the proceedings in CC. No. 200896 of 2016 on the file of Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 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 CC. No. 200896 of 2016 on the file of Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad including personal appearance of the Petitioner/Sole- Accused pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. FF l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Sri. Garikumukku Vijay Kumar, S/o Yesudasu (wrongly shown as Dasu in FIR and CC) Aged 37 years, Occ Private Service, R/o H. No. 6- 95, RTC Colony, Old Ramanthapur, Uppal, Hyderabad and native of IVlalleswaram, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh- 521324. ... Petitioner/Respondent No.2 in l.A.Nos.3 and 4 ot 2025 AND 'l . Mr. Jagdish Kumar Purohith, S/o Jogsingh, Aged 30 years, Occ Business, RJo Plot No. 15, Laxmr Gunti Colony, Rasoolpura, Hyderabad and native of Purohito- ka- was, Bhagal Sephta, Jalor, Rajasthan- 343029. ...RespondenUPetitioner in l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 2: The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court building, Hyderabad Through PS lvlahankali, Secunderabad. ... Respondent /Respondent No.1 in l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 Petition under Section 359 (6) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioneri Respondent No. 2- defacto- complainant to compound the offences under Section 420 of IPC and Sec. 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 with the respondent/petitioner herein in CC. No. 896 of 2016 on the file of Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 359 (2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to record the terms of compromise entered into the Petitioner herein, who is the complainant and Respondent/petitioner, who is sole accused and to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 200896 of 2016 on the file of Xl Addl. Chief Metropolitan [\/agistrate at Secunderabad against the Petitioner/Accused in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri B. Krishna,Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER .,;xr: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.A.Nos.3 and 4 OF 2025 ln/And CRIMINAL PETITION No.8667 oF 2025 COMMON ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C No.200896 of 2016 on the file of Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan N4agistrate at Secunderabad.

2. The petitioner is sole accused in the C.C.No.200896 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 63 of Copy Right Act.

3. Heard Mr.C.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.'l-State and Mr.B.Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2l de-facto complainant.

4. Pending this petition, the parties have entered into the compromise and, accordingly, respondent No.2lde-facfo complainant filed l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 with the prayer to permit them to enter into compromise 2 Arl-R/ I-4.Not.i and 4 of 2025 in/and Cr/.P.No. E667 of 2025 +--,.::.r, i . \ and by recording the settlement to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.200896 o'f 2016

5. This Court vide otdet daled 14.07.2025 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 18.07.2025 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 settlemen Ucompromise

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 between the parties and to restore peace between the parties, in the light of the dictums in Gian Singh v. Stafe of Punjab and anotherl and Anil Mishra v. State of ll.P.2; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others3, this Court is of the considered view that quashment of the impugned 1lrocgedings in view of the settlement by exercising jurisdiction under - , 2012 (10) SCC 303 2 2ozq INSC tg9 3 2019 (5) scc 688 3 Ar R/r IA.NosJ ard I of 2O25 in/ and CrLP.No. 8667 o;f 2025 Section 482 Cr.P.C.l528 of BNSS, 2023, would be in the interest of justice B. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 are allowed. Consequenfly, all the proceedings in C.C No.200896 of 2016 on the file of Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/accused I ln the above terms, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xt Additionat Chief zrnesiatioiit;;;""6F;y."ilr"ih"j,l?:,IFff ' IVo""?r"ot"l",thePublic erosecutoi.'[is'r, c"rrt"i8iYrr" state of rerangana at Xt?"?,,"::g:1.:'.i:fl . f , ff : Eg Li:[.S:[,y$il TJi,i:jilt?J,y,?r NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 r. t: r: S14 (.. J :_)'t 1E tuB 2025 , ',) COMMON ORDER 4-.. -1) l.A.Nos.3 and 4 ot 2025 ln/And CRLP.No.8667 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRLP AND I.A.NOS.3 AND 4 OF 2025 Is sbl &ffi-:'W, ';q,". rdl ..,' \/ ,,7 6 q IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD CRLP No. OF2O25 Between: Mr.Jagdish Kumar Purohith S/o Jogsingh, Aged 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.15, Laxmi Gunti ColonY, Rasoolpura, HYderabad & native of Puroh ito-ka-was, Bhaqal SePhta, Jalor, Rajasthan-343029. AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court building, HYderabad Through PS Mahankali, Secunderabad.

2. Sri.Garikumukku VijaY Kumar S/o Yesudasu (wrongly shown as Dasu in FIR & CC) Aged 37 years, Occ:Private Service, R/o H.No.6-95, RTC ColonY, Old RamanthaPur, UPPal, HYderabad & native of Malleswaram, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh -521324. .. Petitioner/Sole-Accused .. Respondents/Defact-com plaina nt ]OIN CO[4PRO N4ISE N4EN4O

1. It is respectfully submitted that the 2nd respondent filed complaint against Petitioner/Sole-Accused before the 1't respondent Police, inter-alia alleging offence under Section 420 ol'IPC and Sec. 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 wherein he alleged that, the petitioner has selling the spurious products of the HP Company. P itioner 6ivn'^\G'r 2nd R6spondent , 2. While things stood thus, after intervention of the elders and well-wishers of both petitionei on one hand and 2nd respondent on the other, out of court in the first week of July, 2025 wherein the 2nd respondent/com plaina nt agreed to withdraw the case ln C.C.No.200896 of 2016 arisinq out of FIR.No.113l2O75 as he does notwish to pursue this matter any further. Therefore, in view of the compromise between the parties, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the crime against the Petitioner. Further the offences are private in nature and the same are compoundable with the permission of this Hon'ble Ccourt as the punishment prescribed for the oFfence under section 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 is not less than six months but which may extend to three years and offence under sec. 420 IPC is up to 7 years only.

3. Henceforth, there shall not be any claims whatsoever against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and that they shall not interfere with their individual lr res in any manner whatsoever in future. In vrew of realizing the said mistake, which was occurred bonafidely

4. and under mistaken circumstance on the part of the 2nd respondent as such, he has agreed to withdraw the complaint in CC.No.200896 of 2016 on the file of XI Addi. Chief pletropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad against the petitionei-.

5. The 2'd respondent shall not file any fresh complaint/s, case/s etc., against the petitioner herein in future concerning the same cause of action and so also, the petitioner shall not file any cases against the 2nd respondent a lso. Petitioner t 6vnn lb't 2nd Resnondent '.:,*r&t:{:: b n It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to ellASH the proceedings in CC.No.20b896 of 2016 on the File of XI Addl. Chief lYetropolitan IVagistrate at Secunderabad in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this llon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. f,up.lc-l no Respondent 2 I Counsel for Respondent No.2 Petitioner Counsel for Petitioner Hyderabad Dated:lr-07-2025