The High Court · 2025

2. Marineni Navyasri @ Marneni Naveswari, Dio. lvladhusudhan Rao, Age:21 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. Turpurompidodla, Varikuntapadu, Nellore District. ..Respondents/Gomplai nant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C R/w 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 impugned proceedings in F.l.R.No.695 of 2025 on the file of the Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C R/w 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in F.l.R.No.695 of 2025 on the file of the Dundigal Police station, byberabad, including arrest, appearance and attendance of the petitioner / Accused, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Marineni Navyasri @ Marneni Naveswari, D/o. Madhusudhan Rao, Age:2'1 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. Turpurornpidodla, Varikuntapadu, Nellore District. ...Petitioner/2nd ResPondent AND 1 The State of . Telangana, Rep. by its public proser)Ltor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad. Sairaml(ethepally @. Kethipalli Sai Ram Reddy, Sio. Bhoopat Reddy, Age: 29 y"ears Occ Private Employee, R/o. 261155, Millinium ()r arters, anupJlpafL, Warangal District. 2 "' Res Irond e nURes Po nd ent Petition under section 359(6) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorbndum of Grounds of criminai petition, the High c.ourt may 99_nt""9tq to permit the parties herein, to compound the offr:nces-in F.l R. No. 695 of 2025 on the file of the Dundigar porice station, cl,berabad, regisiered against the Accused Nos. 1 to 7 in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 4 OF 2O2s Petition under section 3sg(2) of BNSS praying that i1 the circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to record the compromise in F.l.R. No. 69s of 2c2s on'ihe file of the Dundigal Police station, cyberabad, registered against the Respondent No.2/Accused in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing thr: Memorandum of _ Grounds of criminal Petition _.and upon hearing the aigr- nrents of sri Raju Jarpala, Advocate for the petitioner and the Assistant pub lic prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri Gundaram Manoj Goud, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA l.A.Nos.3 and 4 ol 2025 in/and CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.9558 of 2025 COMMON ORDER 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in FlR.No.695 of 2025 of Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offence punishable under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS), 2023.

2. lt is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused as well as 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.3 and 4 of 2025 have been filed to record compromise between them and to compound the offences.

3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has opposed the said compromise petitions

4. Perused the affidavits filed by lhe de facto complainant in l.A.Nos.3 & 4 of 2025 which disclose that she has willingly consented for compromise. Since the parties were willing to enter 2 tm. J Crlp )5j8 )Dt \ into compromise, they were given a chance to setrrer the matter by appearing along with their respective counsel befon: the High court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana ylde orders dated 29.01_2025 passed by this Court. Thereafter., 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 b1,.his Court, the parties along with their respective counsel have appea.ed before the High court Legar Services committee for the state of rerangana and the Secretary of the-above said Authority identified lhe parties and submitted a report dated 04.0g.2025 stating that the parties were identified and they have willfully and without any coe-cion entered into compromise as per the terms of compromise.

6. ln view of the above, l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2O2!i are allowed. consequentry, the criminar petition is ailowed and th: proceedings in FlR No.695 of 2O2S of Dundigal police Statiorr, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered against the petitioner/a,:crrss6, rr. hereby quashed subject to the petitioner/accused payinlr an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand onry) to the Direrctor, sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings tuc.No.521gg926279, I)tate Bank of ,.& \[ 3 ETD. J AIp 9558 2025 lndia, Shantinagar Branch (20070), IFSC Code:SB1N0020070, MICR 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 file proof of the same before the Registry. 7 . Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed' SD/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Vlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal. 2, The Station House Officer, Dundigat police Station, Cyberabad District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri Gundaram Manoj Goud, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Raju Jarpala, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] (Along with a Copy of Joint Memo of Compromise) Total Amount of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Ten thousand only ) has been paid by Sri Raju Jarpala, counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble court vide order dated l9-08-2025 as Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the ,,Director, Sainik Welfare Hyderabad, and Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only )to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad and fited Memo as proof of compliance USR No. 103421 of 2025 dated 18-09-2025. Kam/PSL a HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 \ COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 in/and CRLP.No.9558 of 2025 2 7 ili:, ?i].15 t_ (.) ALLOWING BOTH l.As AND CRIMINAL PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT:: HYDERABAD I.A. No oF 2025 IN CRL.P. No. oF 202s Between: Sairam Kethepally @ Kethipalti Sai Ram Reddy, S/o. Bhoopal Reddy, Aged 29 years, Occ: Private Employbe, No.26/155, Millinium Quarters, Bhupalpalle, Warangal District. AND l.The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad

2. Marineni Navyasri @ Mameni Navesrvari, D/o. Madhusudhar Rao, aged 21 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R./o. Turpurompidodl4 Varikuntapadu, Nellore District. ... Petitioner / Accused . . . Respondents/Complainant JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO FILED B Y THB PETITIONER AND 2"d RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT May it please your Lordship, l. That on the advice of well wishers both parties have come forward to compromise the matter outside the Hon'ble Court, as the case filed against the Petitioqer/Accused was due to oversight and some misunderstandings, both the parties have come to the conclusion that I no purpose would be served in the case against the petitioner is kept pending. That both parties i.e. the Petitioner/Accused and the 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant have expressed no objection if the criminal case is closed rn F.I.R. No. 695 OF 2025 on the file of the Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad. I 2- It is submiued that in fact.the issue arose between the l't petitioner and 2o'r respondent was out of their love relationship, mrsunderstandings between thorn and due to incompatibility etc . ' under those circumstances. the 2"'l respondent was constraitrcd to file the impugned cnrne against the petitioners and in fact tlLe 2nd respondent did not intend to do so and did not had any foresight lat it might lead to putting grcat inconvenience to the petitioner.

3. It is submitted that upon intervention of well wislrt'rs of both the parties, ancl upon realizatiou by the 2nd respondenl the issues are sofied out and the petitioner and 2nd responded hav: taken amicable decision to close the matter.

4. That thc 2"d Respondent keeping the interest of the caieer and future of the petitioner has voluntarily decided to compromise llte case. Frutrer both the Petitioner / Accused and the 2'd Respondetrt are not having any further issues except the said misunderstandinlSs between them and in order to live happily hereafter both parties have decided to compromise the c ase.

5. That in view of the disputes between the Petitioner / I'ccused and the de facto Conrplainant / 2"d respondent have been settled / compromised. continuation of criminal proceedirrlrs rvill be an exercise in lutiliSr and justice in the case demands the rlispute belween the parties is put to qr end. 6, l'hat the Petitioner has been doing a private job to m()et the day to day requircrncnts of the family and the continuation of the crirninal proceedings is coming in his way of living a peacefirl l:fe. 2 7 . That the 2'd Respondent has voluntarily decided to compromise the matter and no purpose shall be served if the matter is kept pending and that the 2'd Respondent has no objection to proceed to close the case.

8. Therefore both parties, i.e. the Petitioner / Accused and the 2"d Respondent / De-facto Complainanq pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to compound the offences rn F.I.R. No. 695 OF 2025 on the file of the Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad, in the interest of jusfice and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and necessary in the circtrmstances of the case and in the interest ofjustice. Sair (Petrtioner / Accused) Kethepally @ Kethipalli Sai Ram Reddy M Marineni Naryasri @ Marneni Naveswari {2"d Respondent / De facto Comptainant) Co etltrotrer Counsel for 2 Respondent Date'.25.07.2025 Placc: Hyderabad