The High Court · 2025

Adela Venkatesh, S/o Srinivas Rao, Aged q2 y"1i:l-9"" Private Employee' ii['tirr*pi J;u Vittrg" and Mandal' PAkasham District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1 State of Telangana' Rep by its Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad ' ...RESPONDENT NO.1

2. Bondhu Prasanna Kumari, D/o VenkatlRamanaiah' Aged 3l years"Occ ' F""Ii" E.plov"" nlo'il'No or+o sHEr Metro Fnclave Kishtareddypet' Ameenpur tvlandal, s;;g;'R;iv"Diliiici utluapt'.ladu Villase and Mandal' Prakasham District. ...RESPONDENT NO.2/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 359 RfuV 528 OF BNSS praying th?i in lle of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the circumstances stated in tn" quash the proceedings in for the records .and High Court may be pr""""J to tn" i'ft of the Special Judoe for Trial of Cases under S.C.Spl.No. 74 of 2024 "" SCs/STs (poA) Act, 1989_i;;-iit noaitionur District a-nd sessions Judge' sanga Reddy District at Sanga ReddY' "to""Aum ""U 'ft'f r.A. NO;2 0F 2025 Between: Bondhu Prasanna Kumari. D/o Venkata Ramanaiah, Aged 3.1 years, Occ. rrrvate Emptoyee, R/o H.No. 6146, BiEf M*"Ii" Er;r!;= Kishtareddvoet A[i:3f,*Hilfll .,nn, neooy oistriEi iji,i],"p'nliJ vilase and n,rjhoar, AND DE-FAcTo coMpLAtNANr in r.A.No. i & i';i;); ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2/

1. Adela Venkatesh, S/o Srrnivas Rao, Aged 32 years, Occ. private Emproyee. R/o Uravaphadu viliJg" r,io"rurino,r prakasham District of Telangana it Uyaeranaol ,xsl 313.##,?.1,t E,J'JilE! 2. State of reranoa,na,, Rep. by its pubric prosecutor. Hiqh court for the state ...RESPONDENT NO.2/RESPONDENT NO.1 in i.A.No.2&3ol 202i Petition under Section- 35s(6) oF BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Gr_ounds criri.5iiltition, the High court mav be pleased to permjt the petitioner/D;fJ"-.;;;;;firnt "r to unt.r into the .orprori." to compound rhe offence against the RL"p";Gi N; 1/A";;r;i;r' i"i".oiii"l'ro of 2024 on the fire of Soeciar .luoge roiiliar ;;';;;r under SCs/srs (poA) Act, '1989-Cum-ilt Additjonat District arid S"."ionririiJ)"rnn" Reddy District, for the i[T;r",:l?tfiJ,i;. qzo, sta 6c-;#""JrH; 3(2)(v) or scs/Srs (poA) t.A. NO: 30F 2025 Petition under section 359(2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum ot Grounos "rcr^"i#r Eltition. the High court mav be preased to compound the offen.ce ; s c. spi. rv"-'7'4'o1 20240n the fire of speciar Judge for Triar of cases under scsrsis ipon) Act. .r 989-cum-, Additionar District and sessions 'tu.oe sanoa n-"aov oii,ill f'or the offence under sections 420.376 rpc and sectiois atzltVl oisdrEil'ii;cinl Amendment Act, 2015 in view of the compromise between ine parties. These petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon frurring rt'," rrgrr"nr. of Sri pApAlAH PEDDAKULA, Advocate for the petitioner in thJ main cRLp and for Respondent No 1 in r'A No 2 &3 0f 2025 and the pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No. 1 in the main CRLp and fo.. ResponOent no 2 in LA. No.2 &3 of 2025 and of lr/ls. V SHIVANI' Advocate for the Respondent No Cnfp The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER for Petitioner in l A' No'2 &3 of 2025' "na 2 in the matn -.-, THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA l.A.Nos.2 and 3 ot 2025 in/and CRIMINAL PETITION No.9037 ot 2025 COMMON ORDER: 1 ' This criminar petition is fired by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in s.c.spr.No.74 of 2024, on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -cum- il Additionar District & Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 326 lpC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedured castes and schedured rribes (prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 20.1 5.

2. lt is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as the respondent No.2/de facto complainant that during pendency of the present Criminal petition, the parties have compromised the matter and accordingly, l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 have been filed to record compromise between them and to compound the offences 3 The learned Additional public prosecutor has opposed the compromise petitions 2 EM, J Ctt P 90t7 2025 4,Perusedtheaffidavitsfiledbythedefactocomplainantin l.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2025 which disclose that she has willingly consented for compromise. Since the parties were willing to enter into compromise, they were given a chance to settle the matter by appearing along with their respective counsel before the High Court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana vide orders dated 18.07.2025 passed by this Court. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall identify the parties and submit a report to that effect.

5. Pursuant to the above said direction issued by this Court' the parties along with their respective counsel have appeared before the High Court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana and the Secretary of the above said Authority identified the parties and submitted a report dated 30'07 2025 stating that the parties were identified and they have willfully, without any coercion' entered into compromlse. ln view of the above, l'A'Nos 2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed' 6. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.C.Spl.No .14 of 2024'on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs/STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - -- 3 ETD. J crt.P 9AJ7 202s cum- lll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy District, registered against the petitioner/accused are hereby quashed subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.5,000/_ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c.No.52.188926279, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch (2OO7O), tFSC Code:SBtN0O2O07O, M|CR No.500004057) and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, within a period of two (02) weeks from today and fite proof of the same before the Registry. 7. Misceilaneous apprications, if any pending, shafi stand crosed. I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR r'\" 1\,il ,i\i t SECTION OFFICER ttt Additionat Drsirict and Sessions Judg", Si"ri, n"O.jV Oiiriii"i '1 The Special.Jgdge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (pOA) Act, 1989_Cum_ 2. The Station House Officer, Ameenpur police Station, Sangareddy District. 3. One CC to SRt pApAtAH PEDDAKULA Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Ms. V SH|VANI, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to pUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Txsry

6. Two CD CoPies GR/PSL Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Gompromtse *ff*ffm*rg*fi***fifififfi { i HIGH COURT DATED:1 8,tOBt2OzS ? r SiP Zfim " ..f .-\ r:.,; r,,,r, r..- l i COMMON ORDER r.A. NOS. 2 AND 3 0F 2025 IN/AND CRLP 9037 0F 2025 ALLOWTNG BOTH THE t.As AND CRLP 96 lqlu' i: INTHEHIGHcoURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELANGANAATHYDERABAD Crl.P.No. oF 2025 Between: Adela Venkatesh S/o Srinivas Rao, Aged 32 Years, Occ: Private EmPloYee, n7o Ufru"pnrdu Village and Mandal, Prakasham Distriot' ... Petitioner/Accused AND 1 2 State of Telangana' Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Uidf, C'orrt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...Respondent No.1 Bondhu Prasanna Kumari D/o Venkata Ramanaiah' Aoed 3'l vears, Occ: Private Employee' nio ff .ruo. 6146, BHEL Metro Enclave, Kishtareddypet' Ameenpur tr/landal, Sanga Reddy Diskict, UtavaphaOu Village and Mandal, Prakasham Dis-trict' ...Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant JOINT MEMO FILED ON B EHALF OF THE PETITI ONER/AC CUSED AND RESP ONDENT No .2/DEFACTo-coM PLAINANT 1. lt is submitted that Petitioner filed the above criminal petition filed the above criminal petition to quash the proceedings in S'C'Spl'No' 74 of 2024 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act' 1989- Cum-lll Additio.nal District and Sessions Judge, Sanga i'eddy District at Sanga Reddy, for the oiTen'ce under sections 420,376 IPC and sections 3(2XV) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, registered against him pursuant to the complaint lodged bY me. 2lfurthersubmitthatwhilethematterstoodthus,asthedefacto- complainantintendtogetmarryandsearchingformarriagealliancesandthe accusedalsointendingtogoabroa-clasthebotharesufferingduetothe .l3*f tld'^*^'s pendency of the proceedings at the intervention of the erders and welr_wisheis of both the parties, the defacto-comprainant agreed to withdraw the compraint on terms of compromise without there being any threat or coercion from anybody as the case was resurted due to the difference between the Petitioner/Accused and the 2nd respondenudefacto-comprainant and as such we arrived at a conclusion that the Accused sha, pay an amount of Rs'7'00'000/- to setre a, the issues and accordingly r received the same. Hence there is no chance of conviction even if the case is tried in view of the settlement between the parties. Hence, it is just and necessary in the interest of justice to compound the offence under sections 420,376rpc and sections 3(2)04 0f scs/srs (poA) Amendment Act, 2015 andquash the proceedings in s'c spr'No ' 74 0f 2024 0n the fire of speciar Judge for Triar of cases under scs/srs (poA) Act, 1989-cum-, Additionar District and sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy District. I

3. lt is therefore prayed that this Hon,ble Court may be pleased to compound the offence under sections 420,376 lpC and sections 3(2)(V) of SCs/STs (pOA) Amendment Act, 20.15 and quash the proceedings s'c'spr.No 74 0f 2024 0n the fire of speciar Judge forTriar of cases under scs/srs (poA) Act, 1989-cum-, Additionar District and sessions Judge, sanga Reddy District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon,bre Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Hyderabad, Date: 12-07-2025 ,a-'{* (Petitioner/Accused) o.'r.xJ^ corn."l tJr"'ir,e petitioner ?c'lq','"r" ' g (2"d Respohderi'UDefacto_Com plainant) o Couns e for the 2nd Respondent