The High Court · 2025

2. Sri.N.Rami Reddy, S/o. N.P.Reddy, Aged about 76Yee r ,, Occ Business, R/o. PIot No.553, Road No.27 Jubilee hills, Hyderabad-s0O 0:i3.

3. Sri.G.Nagi Reddy, S/o. G.Kista Reddy, Aged about 72'tears. Occ Business, No. 12-2-4211 , Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

4. Sri.M.Nathanien, S/o. M.Anand Rao, Aged about 6r) Years, Occ Private Service, R:/o. Plot No. 265, Jaijawan Colony, Hyderabac.

5. Sri.P.Vara Prasad, S/o. P-Bala Prasad, Aged about li(i Years, Occ Private Employee, Rlo. 221,Salarjun Colony, Hyderabad.

6. Sri.B.Srinivas, S/o. B.Narasimha, Aged about 41 '/ears, Occ Private Employee, R/o. 1 3-6-25415/4"/1 , Heera Nagar, Gudimall r pur, Hyderabad. ..Respondents/Petitioners in l.l\ Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 Petition under Section 359 (2) of BNSS praying that i ithe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, t-r : High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner/Respond ent No.2/De f : :to Complainant to compound the offences with the Respondents/ Petitioners/Acr :used Nos.1, 2, 3, .9 & 10 under Sections 415,406,420,468, 471,12O (b) IPC R/n 34 lpC and 156 (3) Cr.P C in FIR Dated 15.09.2021 with Crime No.'1088 ot 2021 t'n the fite of the PS., Narsingi, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District and pass such otlrer and further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances c' the case and in the interest of justice. r l.A. NO:3 oF 2025 Petition under Section 359(2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Ciiminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to RECORD the Terms of Compromise between the Petitioner/ Respondent No.2, herein and the Res pondents/Petitioners herein and euash the proceedings in FIR No-1088 of 2021 Dated 15.09.2021 on the file of the pS., Narsingi, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District for the offences under Section 415, 406,420,468,471,120 (b) IPC R/w. 34 tPC and 156 (3) Cr.p.C against the Respondents/Petitioners and pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and 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 M/s RESU LAW OFFICE, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri Jithender Rao Veerama a, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1, and of Sri P. Chandrashekar, Advocate for the Respondent No,2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER J THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE V] EADA l.A.Nos.2 &3 of 2025 in/and CRIMINAL P ETITION No.91 19 ot 2ort; COMMON ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 52g of BNSS, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, 9 & 10 in Crime No.1( gB of 2021 , on the file of Station House Officer, Narsingi police Statirtn, Cyberabad District, registered for the offences punishable unde r Sections 415, 406,42O,468,471 and 12Ob read with 34 of lpC, ttlr,;O and Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

2. lt is submitted by learned counsel for the petiti:ners/accused Nos.1 to 3,9 & 10 as well as respondent No.2 that dr-ring pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have ccrlpromised the matter and accordingly, l.A.No.2 & 3 of 2O2S haver been filed by respondent No.2/defacto complainant seeking p ermission to compound the offences, to record compromise anrl to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in the above crime . 3 The learned Additional Public prosecutor har; opposed the compromise petition z EfO,J t.A.Nos.2& i oI2025 tn/ond crtp.No.9119 ol 2025

4. 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 ylde orders daled 23.10.2025 passed by this Court. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall identify the parties and submit a repo( to that effect.

5. Pursuant to the above said direction issued by this Court, the pa(ies 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 04.11.2025 stating that the parties were identified and they have willfully, without any coercion, entered into compromise.

6. ln view of the above, l.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2O2S are allowed. Consequently,. the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.1OBB of 2021 , on the file of Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad District, are hereby quashed subject to the petitioners paying an amount of Rs.5,0001 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the ielangana High Court Bar Association, Hyderabad and Rs.5,0001 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the High ., Court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana, within a 3 EfD,J tANot.2&3o[202s h/ood Cttp.No.9 t t9 ol 2025 period of two (02) weeks from today and file prc,<,f of the same before the Registry.

7. lViscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha I stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- C. DEEPIKA ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR6 }ECTION OFFICER To, \ '1. The XVI Additional Metropolitan tvlagistrate Cyberabad ar :lajandranager. 2. The Station House Officer, Narsing(CyB) police Station, C yberabad. 3. Two ccs to the Pubric Prosecutor, High court for the statr r of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI M/s RESU LAW OFFTCE Advocate [OpL ( ]l 5. One CC to SRI P.CHANDRASHEKAR, Advocate [OpUC. 6. Two CD Copies (Along with copy of Joint memo is enctosed herewitl I Note: Total Amount of Rs.10,0001 ( Rupees Ten thousand onh/ I has been paid by M/s Resu Law Office, Counsel for the petitioner as directed t,) the Hon,ble Court vide order dated '13.1 1 .2025 as Rs.5,000r ( Rupees Five tho, ;and onry ) to the "High Court Legal Services Committee at Hyderabad, Rs.5,I (Rupees Five thousand only ) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Associati:n, Hyderabad and filed Memo as proof of compliance USR No.132680 of 2O25. .)0L NVB/PR HIGH COURT DATED:1311112025 \ COMMON ORDER lA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 ln/And CRLP.No.9119 of 2025 -='.oK THE S i-4 (). \ \-, C) 2r il0u t a\ -iicH ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION LrtD LA.Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2025 , HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD BETWEEN: CRLP.NO. 9119 0F 2025 1 2 3 4 5 SRI.N.RAMI REDDY S/o. N.P.REDDY, Aged about 76 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.553, Road No.2 7 lubilee hills, Hyderabad-500 033. SRI.G.NAGI REDDY S/o. G.Kista Reddy, Aged about 72 Years, Occ: Business, Rl o. 12-2-42/ 1, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. SRI.M.NATHANIEN S/o. M.Anand Rao. Aged about 60 Years, Occ: Private Service, R/o. Plot No.265, Jaijawan Colony. H yd era ba d. SRI.P.VARA PRASAD S/o. P.Bala Prasad, Aged about 56 Years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. 221, Sa la rju n Colony, Hyderabad. SRI. B.SRINIVAS S/o. B. Na rasim ha, Aged about 41 Years. Occ: Private Employee, Rlo. 73-6-254/5/A/1, Heera Nagar, Gudimalkapur, H yd e ra bad. t PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2, 3, 9 & 10 Petiti ner 1 Petit ner No.2 etitio-n? i No.3 AK Petl{-rone r :,,;'i N o.5 %:* Respondent No.2 Petitioner No.4 ,f r ,4t € 1 2 @ AND THE STATE OF TELANGANA Through Pu blic Prosecuto r, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. SMT.Y.KRISHNA RAO W/o. Y. Ba lraj Krishna Aged abouti[Yea rs, Occ: Housewife, R/ o. Boduppa l, CYbera bad, Telangana. RA] KUMARI Rao, B 7 /2t5/2s4, RESPONDENTS ]OINT CO t\4PROMISE NiEMO No.2 filed the It is respectfully submitted that the RespondenL 1. 1,2,3,9 and Private Complaint aqainst the Pctitioner/Accused No: ' 10 & others alleging offences under Section 415' 4O(t"120' 168' 417' 120 (b) iPC R/w 34 and 156 (3) CrPC IPC inter-alia al :ging that her father Late Y.Balraj and his elder brother Late Y'Narr mha were the pattedars and possessors of lancl admeasurlnq ^:'12-00 Gts ' forming part of Sy.Nos .79 Parl,79/l Parl, B0 Part' l-02 Pari' 103 Part and 104 Part and Ac.2-00 Gts', in Sy'No 146 rart together admeasuring Ac.14-00 Gts.., situated at Neknamput- Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dlstrict The Respondent No Z,further stated that during the lifetime of Y.Balraj and his brother Y I\ arsimha along with Y.Venugopal and Y.Prabhakar entered into a (; I teral Power of Attorney Dated 22.04.1996, bcarinq Document No 1[ / 1996 in favour of K.L. Reddy S/o. K.Ranr Reddy by qiving sale p( \ /eTS to him in respcct of the above mentioncd land' I Petitioner No.1 Peti ner No.4 Pe ti ro r No.2 )etitioner No.3 ,tfl.nrs-.-: lespo nden t No.2 Petiti er No.5 2 0

2. The Respondent No.2 further stated in her complaint that the sard General Power of Attorney horder K.L.Reddy arong with the other lands taken the permission from HUDA and converted the lands into plots and sold the plots to th.e respective purchasers and in the year 2002 the said General power of Attorney holder K.L.Reddy handed over the unsold plots vide plot bearing Nos.2B3, 2g4,285,295 and 296 total admeasuring 2,100 Sq.yds., in Sy.No.79 part,79/t part, B0 Part, 102 Parl, 103 part and 104 part, situated at Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and plot bearing Nos.261lPart, 262/part, 27S, 276, 2tj, 278, 27g and 280 admeasuring 1921 Sq.yds., to iwo families.

3. As the things stood thus few days ago the Respondent No.2 and her family members were shocked to know that some people have created fake documents in and over their above said plots, upon which they went to the concerned Department and has obtained the Sale Deeds Dated 13.06.2021, bearing document Nos.2457/20J,2, 2458/2012 and 2459/2012 and in turn basing on the above link other Sale Deeds has been created vide Document Dated Og.7l.2O]tZ, bearing Document No.539l/20t2, Dated 22.11.2013, bearing Document No.7270/2073, Dated 30.11.2013, bearing Document No.7391/2O13, Dated 2t.12.2073, bearing bocument No.7772/2073, Dated 24.O2.2OI4, bearing Document No.1016/2014, Dated 24.02.2014, bearing Document No.1019/2014, DaLed tS.O3.ZO74, bearing Document No.7367/2074, Dated 04.04.2074, bearing Document P toner No.1 ,"Mk, Petitioner No.4 Petlt ner No.5 _t Petitioner No.3 -' Pnv -; Responden t NoY2 @ Dated

25.04.2014, bearing Dated Dated Dated Dated Da ted Dated Dated Da ted Dated Da ted Da ted Dated Dated Dated Dated Dated Da ted Dated Da ted Da ted Da ted

02.o5.2014, 15 .0 5.2014,

23.06.20t4,

26.06.2014, 27 .o7.2014,

06.08.2014 30 .08.2014, 25 .O9 .20t4,

18.09.2014, 26 .O9 .2014,

01.r0.2014, 1B . 10.2014, t1 .o2.70L6,

20.02.2076,

24.02.2076, i 1.04.2016,

16.05.2016, o1.01 .2016, ot.ol .2016,

08.09.2016,

19.10.2016, Da ted

07.o2.2017, bearinq bearing bearinq bea rin g bea ring bea rinq bearing bea rin g bearing bea rin g bea ring bearing bea ring bea rin g bea rincr bearinc: bea rin c bca rinc bea rin q bearinr bea rin t- bearinll No.U32/2074, N o. 2106/ 2014, No.2772/2OL4, No.2409/2074, No.29f 8/2074, No.3069/2014, No.3450/2014, No.3712/2014, No.4272/201.4, No.4616/2014, No.4569/20L4, No.4l05/2014, No.4B05/2014, No. s0B2l2014, No.902/2016, No.1051/2016, No. 1 138/2016, No.2764/2Ot6, No.2913/701.6, No.3970,/2016, No.397 U2016, No.6462/20L6, N o. 6 716120 16, Dated No.441/20).7, bearint; No.4082/20 r8, No.962U2019 and to their dismay they learned abotrt

22.06.2019, Dated

30.04.2018, bea rin t; Document D ocu me nt D ocu men t Docu ment Docu meh t Docu men t D ocum e nt Document Document Document Document Document Document D ocu me nt Document [)ocu ment [)ocu ment [)ocument Docu ment Docu ment Document ' Document Docu ment Docu ment Docu ment he a bove sa id Petitioner N 1 Pe n T No.2 Petitio ner No.4 ,",,rM No.5 -t d_ f etitioner No.3 , .q* i :sprrndent No.2 a @ encumbrances in respect of their above said plots as if their the then General Power of Attorney holder has executed it immediately they approached their the then General Power of Attorney hotder Sri K.L.Reddy and he denied about the execution of any dociLment by him after the year 2002.

4. The Respondent No.2 further submits that after a keen perusal of the above said Sale documents they learned that some fake people have executed the same by impersonating their the then General Power of Attorney holder K.L.Reddy by forging her signatures and thumb impressions and even the address mentioned under the name of alleged General Power oF Attorney holder is also found wrong as they obtained the certiticate to thaf effect from the concerned Department. The photograph enclosed to the above said Sale documents is pertaining to a fak€.person and in all the above fake and forged Sale Deeds two persons namely P.Vara Prasad S/o. P.Bala Prasad, and B.Srinivas S/o. B.Narasimha attested as witnesses i.e., the Accused Nos.9 and 10 herein. In the said documents the names ot the Vendees are i) Mr.N.Ram Reddy S/o. N.P.Reddy (Petitioner No.1), ii) G.Nagi Reddy S/o. G.Kista Reddy (Petitioner No.2), iii) M.Nethaniel S/o. Anand Rao (Petitioner No.3) and others who inturn have executed many other documents without any title and iight and gained illegally and filed the Private Complaint before the Hon'ble Court and the same was referred to the Police Narsingi and the Police Narsingi registered FIR Dated L5.O9.2021 with Crime No.10BB of 2021 under Section 415,406,420,468,471,, 120 (b) IPC R/w 34 IPC and 1 3) CrP€. Petit j er No 2 Petitioner No.3 Petitioner No.4 Petiti d&*", .- wk '-; Respondent No;2 f Q0' It is respectfully submitted that after knowing abc rt the crime 5. registered, the Petitioners with the common elders ap tr roached the Respondent No.2 and explained the facts that in fact tr:l Petitioners are induced by third party and they are also victims anc.they should be the witness to the transactions and after dt-re ci ;cussion the Petitioners and the Respondent No 2 compromlsed anrl came to the underSrandingthattheRespond€ntNo.2executeappropriate document in favour of the Petitioners or their successc -s to perfect their title along with her family members' It is submitted that due to intervention of comrr t n elders and 6. well-wishers of both Petitioner/Accused Nos 1, 2,3,9 e r d 10 and the Rgspoldent No'2 herein at initiali;' at the FIR stage tlr : matter was ,dttl"d:b"t*"en them and accorQingly Respondent No '' has qiven a DECLARATION cum SWORN AFFIDAVIT Dated 76'O7'2t 25 accepting that the Respondent No.2/De facto Complainant h; ve cxecuted Registered Sale Deeds with Petitioner/Accused Nos' 1, 2 ' 3' 9 and 10 in respect of the above mentioned Plots by rr ceiving dub Consideration from the Petitio n e r/Accu sed Nos 1, 2, 3 i) and 10 and further the dispute which Respondent No'2 had r 'rlsed in her Complaintwasresolvedamicablytoherfullandfinals.tisfaCtion.The Respondent No.2 has submitted her requisition etter Dated L6.OT.2025totheStationHouseOfficer,Narsingi,Cyll:rabadgiving herconsentandNooBJECTIONforcIosureol.Crimel.Jr>1088of2027 before the PS. Narsingi while appreciating her v irhcrawal of Complaint more particularly for the reason o amicable Pe er No.1 Pet ton r No.2 Petitioner No.4 ,"rnMo 5 6 l. l i).)titioner No,3 Fl. )spo ndent N 12*,-.; 2 1 ', l: o Settlement. The petitio ner/Accu sed Nos.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 being the bonafred purchasers for consideration of the Subject prots, the Respondent No.2 has Ratified the purchases of petitio n er/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 which they acquired under their respective Registered Sale Deeds. The Respondent No.2 realized the Petition e r/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, g and 10 are innocents of the said Offences and therefore are not liable for any prosecution.

7. In view of settling the matter between the Respondent No.2 and the Petition er/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, g and 10, the Respondent No.2 withdrew the Complaint or FIR No.10B8 of 202t .1€.09.2021 on.'the file of pS. Narsingi, Cyberabad, Ranga .N- " - -Qistrict against.tlre Petition erlAccused Nos.1, 2, 3, g and 70. Further she has NO OBIECTION to allow the CRLP No.9119 of 2025 by quashing the FIR No.10BB of zo)s, Dared 15.09.2021 on the File of PS. Narsingi, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. Reddy Da ted B. It is also decrqred by the Respondent No.2 as henceForth there shall be no claims or whatsoever against the pctitio n e r/Accused Nos.1, 2, 3,,,9 and 10. The Respondent No.2 shall mean and include herself and, he.r family members and it is also Declared that henceforih either the Respondent No.2 or any person .L,.,n, through her shall not interfere with the rives or Iiberties of the P'e titioner/Accu sed Nos.1, 2,3,9 and 10 herein in any manner with regard to Subject Plots. Petit ton er No. 'er No.2 Petitioner No.3 Petitioner No.4 w*", Peti ,' Q1gv - --.: Respondent Nb.2 7 @,

9. The Respondent No 2 shall not file any fresh Case/s. etc., against the Petitlo ner/Accused Nos l' 2' herein in future concerning the same cause of action' (l .)mplaint/s, 3, 9 and 10 o It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court ma / be oleased torecordthetermsofcompromiseandQUASHtheFlFiNo.l0BBof 2021, Date L5.Og 2O2L on the file of PS Narsingi' Cyber i bad' Ranga Reddy District against the Peti[ioner/Accused Nos l' 2' ]' 9 and 10 and pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in tlrrl interest of justice. PETITIC)].IER NO.1 PE<&,,; tfl, Gn'nto.z N.-2 PETTTII] I\ R NO.3 \ PETIT I: N ER NO,4 PETII I()NER NO.5 7''B4v-"; RESPO.,IDENT NO.2 PLACE DATED HYDERABAD .o9.202s ,Yi D dhv-'l COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS t COUNSEL FOR R NDENT NO.2 I d ,i