✦ High Court of India · 18 Aug 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 18 Aug 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
18 Aug 2025
Length
1,396 words

...Respondents Petition under section- 5rg of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cri[..,in'"i'F"iition, t# Hi;h c;;['#; be pleased to quash the Droceedings against peiii;ner]Accused No. 1 in spl. sc No'64 of 2023 on the firb of_Hon'5r" vlAJoiii"rri'irieiioportan sessions Judse Court-cum-speciat Court for SC/ST c".". l.A. NO:2OF 2025 "id".,in;;;;"o Petition under section.52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ot Crtr_.in'ri Fuiition, tne xigi-6;i';;; be pleased to stay a[ further proceedings incruding of petitioner/ Accused No. 1 in spl. sc No. 64 0f zois on th;'ire-of Hon,bre vr Additionar Metroporitan sessions Judge court-crr-sp""iri-coirt for sc/sr cases at Secunderabad "pp""r"n"" l.A. NO: 3 OF 2026 Between: Jaladi Rama Devi, D/o. Jaladi Balaraju, Age: 30 years, Occ: private Employee, R/o.Punjagutta officers corony,_tteai natia o""i-rni iasn Agencies Medical Hall, Permanent R/o. H.No_i-5t/.1, frashanthi,irg.i Corony, Laxmidevipalli, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ...Petitioner/RespondenUDe_facto Complainant AND 1. Mekala Rahul Varma, S/o. M. Narasinga Rao, Age: 33 years, Occ: pvt. Job, Rl/_o .Yadagiri Nagar, Near yousufgudJCheck polst, Hyderabad, N/o H.No.9_ 4-68/1, Madhura Basthi, Kothagudem, Head poit Office, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. .. RespondenUAccused 2 The State of Telangana, Represented by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ' Petition under section 3s9(6) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ot Criminal p-etifion, the High C;il;;; be p]eased to permit the petitioner to compromise the case in spr. s.c. ruo. oa oi 2023 on the file of Hon'ble vl Additional lViekopolitan sessions iuoge court-cum- special court for SC/ST cases at secunderabad in the interest of ju'stice. ...RespondenURespondent 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 criminai p6tition, the Hioh court mav be pleased to record the compromise in the above criminar petitron ino quisn ii6 spl. s.c. No. 64 of 2023 on the fire of Hon'bre vr Additionar Mekoporitan'Gri;;; Judge court-cum-special court for sc/sr cases at secunderabad in the interesi of justice. This- P^etition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of ^ Grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri sahithi sri Kavya Mukkera, Advocate for the petitioner an-d the Ao]oitional public prosecutoi on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri chenagoni Mounika, Rovocate ioi the Respondent No.2. The Court made the foltowing: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 in/and cRlMlNat penffiruo.g+cs ot zozs COMMON ORDER:

1.' This criminar petition is fired by the petitioner/accused No.1 under section s2g of BNSS, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in spl.sc.No.64 of 2023, on the file of the court of vl Additional Metropotitan sessions Judge -cum- speciar court for sc/sr cases at secunderabad registered for the offences punishable under sections s76(2)(n),412,3s4-c, 506 read with 109 IPC and Section 3(t)(r)(s) and section 3(2)(v) of the schedured castes and schedured rribes (prevention of Atrocities Act), 201s.

2. lt is submitted by learned counset for the petitioner/accused No.1 as weil as the respondent No.2 that during pendency of the present criminar petition, the parties have compromised the matter and accordinglyl r.A.Nos.3 and 4 or 2o2s have been fired to record compromise between them and to compound the offences. 3 The learned Additional public prosecutor has opposed the compromise petition

4. since the parties were wiiling to enter into compromise, they were given a chance to setfle the matter by appearing along with \ z\ # 2 ETD. J oLP 9145 2025 their respective counser before the High court Legar Services Committee for the State of Telangana w?e orders dated 2g.07.2025 passed by this Court. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services committee shall identifo 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 counset have appeared before the High Cou( Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana and the Secretary of the above said Authority identified the parties and submitted a report dated 11.08.2025 stating that the parties were identified and they have wififuily, without any coercion, entered into compromtse.

6. ln view of the above, l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2O2S are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Spl.SC.No.64 ot 2023, on the file of the Court of Vl Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge -cum- speciar court for sc/sr cases at secunderabad registered against the petitioner/accused No.lare hereby quashed subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Director, Sainik WelfaG, Hyderabad (Savings A/c.No.52188926229, State Bank of lndia, Shantinagar Branch (2OO7 O), I FSC Code:SBI NOO2OO7O, M ICR n^. 3 No.50000 4OS7) and Rs.S,r Telangana High Court Ad period of two (02) weeks b6fore the Registry. "r."_*or?r! 000F (Rupees Five Thousand Onty) to the vocates Association, Hyderabad, within a from today and file proof of the same 7 Misceilaneous apptications, if any pending, shart stand crosed TO, \ //TRUE COPYII SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/ @ SECTION OFFICER : If,.! #:13:i'r{:[TJJ:Hosess ions J ud se court-cu m -s pecia r co u rt ro r 2' The Station-T,or= bfri;;;';;njagutta porice station, Hyderabad District. ] iff*:J:rffif'bi;F;";.ut6r, Hish c;,,ti;, the state or reransana at 4' One cc to ,-srisahithisri Kavya.I\4ukkera, Advocate [opUc] s. one CC to Sri Ch;;;;;;i #unka, Advocate IopUCI ' -s-"'| rvrvr Two cD copies &, (Along with a Copy of Joint Memo of Compromise) TotarAmount of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Ten thousand onry ) has been paid by Sri Sahithi sri Kavya Mukkera, counsel for the petitioner as directed by the Hon,bre court vide order dated 1g-og-2025 as Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand onry) to the "Director' sainik werfare Hyderabad, and Rs. 5,ooo/_ ( Rupees Five thousand only) to the Telangana High court Advocates Association, Hyderabad and fired Memo as proof of compriance UsR No.13gg6g of 2O2'dated 04_12_2025. Kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:18 tOAtzO2S c COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos.3 and 4 ot ZO2S in/and CRLP.No.9 445 of 2025 'iri= S i.{ 14: ( 12 oEc il6 ((\( ;a C5 3 r:,.:, i ,-l i 'r-';i"" ALL_OWNG BOTH t.As AND CRIMINAL PETITION I i i i I I I I I ! HIGH COURT FOR THE TE OF TELANGANA AT oF 2025 l.A.No. . ., CRL.p.No. lN oF 2025 BETWEEN: ffi**ffiffn** Complainant Post, Hyderabad, tu*r..a*lNt+l 1 2 f,li':***F,H:fftr ....RespondenURespondent lt is to submit that the allegation of the 1 a complaint before p.S. fcgrlsed No.1 and potice 417,'420,3548, 354C o{Sc{sT (poA) Act,20 of z)ii on the file of Court-curn-special petitionbr. Punjagufta, complainant is that she has given yderabad against the H petitioner herein registered a FIR vide 423/2029 U nderSecs, 376(2), 506, r/w. 1 09 of lpC and Sec.3(1 )0), 3(1Xs), 3(2Xv) 15-in which charge sh eet is filed vide spt. S.c. wo. o+ Hon'ble Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cases at Secundera bad against the Court for SC/ST 7 / / R ;1,n #fffi'#:: ;:T::l^":y or the werr-wish ers an d erders or the :li :T"^,, ",," ;;*J::T,il:T[:;nHI-;:1' ii:{tr an Affidavit stating that r ,, **, tJ witnora* nu ,oove said case. ,"-"r':: r. tt is submitted that the mafter is setfled out of the court, I am ready to. withdraw the case against the pefitioner circurnsrancesthisHon,b]e*,T:,{r#[r"ffi."#il"il:].,, j]" spr' s'c' No' 64 0f 2023 0n *" ;";;.t:0" , Addirionar Mehoporitan ff *::#J';,,:;:I:**f#T":,.J.rrcasesa,secuno"oo"i i willsuffer ireparable toss. That the petitioner 0.,u,;;|] and D n ft l1fif x ;"TJ1,ffiT [ il;H[,: ;:T: l;: " " pleased to euash the Spl. S.C. No. 64 of 2023 ff":'fi':il.e"J.::::-"*t;";;;;;::,1",J1",::.1:::'::TJ m*l3*ll::..: :l:ffir;:ffi*ltt*}:# Hence, this Joint Memo. HYDERABAD DNTE:il1:OT_2025 counselfor C1'6t-'lJ*^^ Petitioner. 1'' Qvnut u<m1 1 *"r0ffi (r. rurnt1 $euij ,

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