High Court · 2025

1. Jinukuntla NaveenGoud, s/o Srisailam Goud Aged. 32 years Occ. Agriculture R/o mamidipally village of Nand(7ama Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

2. Kalkuda Satish, S/o Padmaiah aged 41 years Occ. Agriculture R/o Srinivasulaguda village Nandigama Mardal Ranga Reddy District

3. Kummari Chennaiah, Kummari Chennaiah s/o Chandraiah aged 43 years Occ. Agriculture R/o Sankepallygudem village Shabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District AND PETITIONERS'ACCUSED 6 TO 8

1. State of Telengana, Rep by Public prosecutor High court for the State of Telengana, Hyderabad 2. Gaddam Srinivas, S/o Sailu, Manchapahad H/o Modatlag District ag€d 40 years Occ.Agriculture R/o ud-a village Nandigama Mandal Ranga Reddy RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 528 of tsNSS., 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 SC SPL 313 of 2022 and pending on the file of the learned V{l Add! District and Sessions Judge cum SC-ST At Ranga Reddy District LB nagar in view of the settlernent between the Petitioner and the Second Respondent here in. !.4_llo:toE!4: Between: Gaddam Srinivas, S/o Sailu, aged 40 years Occ.Agriculture R/o Manchapahad H/o Modallaguda village Nandigama Mandal Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner/Respondent No.2 AI,ID

1. State of Telengana, Rep by Public prosecutor High court for the State of Telengana, Hyderabad.

2. Jinukuntla Naveen Goud, s/o Srisailam Goud Agric.rlture R/o mamidipally village of Nandigama Distri,:t. Aged. 32 years Occ. Mandal, Ranga Reddy

3. Kalkuda Satish, S/o Padmaiah aged 41 years Occ. Agriculture R/o Srinivasulaguda village Nandigama Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

4. Kumrnari Chennaiah, Kummari Chennaiah sr/o Chandraiah aged 43 years Occ. Agriculture R/o Sankepallygudem village Shabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District. Respondents Petition under Section 359(6) of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances stated in the ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner/De-facto complainant and Accused 6 to 8 only to compound lhe offences in SC SPL 313 ol 2022 and pending on the file of the learned Vll Addl. District and Sessions Judge cum SC-ST at Ranga Reddy District LB na1lar in view of the compromise between the parties and to record the compromi:;e. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased pl3ased to record the compromi-se between the parties here in and lo quash the quash the SC SPL 313 ot 2022 and pending on the file of the learned Vll l,ddl District and Sessions Judge cum SC-ST At Ranga Reddy District LB Nagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M ANAND KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent l.lo. 'l and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ! THE HON'BLE SMT. JUST1CE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA l.A.Nos.l and 2 of 2025 in/and PETITION No.9856 ot ?0.25 cRl COMMON ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 8 under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.SP|-.No.313 of 2022 on the file of the learned Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-SC/ST, at Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427,506 r/w 34 of l.P.C. and Section 3(1Xf) of l SC/ST (POA)Act, 2015.

2. Heard Mr.M.Anand Kumar, tearned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondeht No.1-State and Mr.G'Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. lt is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 8 as vrrcll as respondent No.2/de facto cornplainant that during pendency of the present criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and accordingly, l'A'Nos'1 and 2 of 2025 have been filred to record compromise between them and to compound the o,ffences. \ !!, 2

4. Tlre learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the said corrpromise petitions.

5. F'erused the affidavits filed by the de fado complainant in l.A.Nos.1 and 2 ol 2025 which disclose that he has willingly consented for compromise. Since the parties were willing to enter into conrpromise, 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 yrde orders dated O1.08.2025 passed by this Court. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall identify the parties and submit a report tc, that effect.

6. Prlrsuant 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 submitterd a report dated 18.08.2025 stating that the parties were identifie,l and they have willfully and without any coercion entered into conrpromise as per the terms of compromise.

7. , ln view of the above, l.A.Nos..l and 2 ol.2O2S are allowed. Co2sequently, the Criminal petition is allowed and the procggl!!4gs I I I i i b 3 in s.c.sPL.No.31 3 0f 2022 0n the file of the learned Vll Additional Distri,ct and Sessions Judge-cum-SC/ST, at Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, are hereby quashed subject to the petitioners/accused Nos.6 to 8 paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupes Five Thousand only) to the Telangana Bar Association, Hyderabad and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to High court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana within a period of tvvo (02) weeks from today and file proof of the sa{rle before the Registry' 8 Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/. A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII s OFFICER \ To,

1. The vll Additional District and sessions Judge+um-SC & sT Court, Ranga Reddy, L.B. Nagar.

2. The S.H.O., P.S. Nandigama, Ranga Reddy District. 3. One CC to SRl. M ANAND KUMAR Advocate tOprcI 4- one cc to THE PUBLtc PRosEcuroR, HIGH couRT, HyD tourl 5. Two CD Copies (Enclosed a copy of the Joint Memo) NOTE: Total an amount of Rs.10.000/- (Rupees Town thousand only) has been paid b,v Sri M. Anand Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble court vide order dated 22.08.2025 as Rs.5,000/- (Rtrpees five thousand only) to the felangana Bar Association and Rs.5.000/- (nrpees Firre thousand only) to the Secretary. High Court Legal Services Committee High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and filed Memo as proof of compliance vide USR.No.98859 OF 2025, Ot.tt.Oq.ZOZS. o t- HIGH COURT DATEDi25rc8l2025 ORDER l.A.Nos. 1 & 2OF 2025 IN/AND CRLP.No.9856 of 2025 S rA .rA o C) 2l JAll 2026 * / ALLOWIN|S THE I.A.Nos.l & 2 OF 2025 AND CRLP ,{ ''? (cRrMrNAL Mrsc. pErrrroN) (urs.3s, bLR% BEF'ORE THE HONOT'RABLE HIGH COI'RT OT'TELENGANA AT: HYDERABAD I.A No: of 2025 { IN CRLP No.: qffL of 2025 Between: 1) Jinukuntla Naveen Goud s/o Srisailarn goud Aged: 32 years Occ: Agriculture R/o mamidipally village of Nandigama Mandal Ranga Reddy Districr 2) Kalkuda Satish s/o Padmaiah aged 4l years Occ: Agriculture R/o Srinivasulaguda village Nandigama Mandal Ranga Reddy District 3) Kummari Chennaiah s/o chandraiah aged 43 years Occ: Agriculture R/o Sankepallygudem village Shabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District ...Petitioners/Accused 6 to g AIlQ 1) State of Telengana Rep by Public prosecuto High court of Telengana, Hyderabad 2) Gaddam Srinivas s/o Sailu aged 40 years occ; Agriculture R./o Manchapahad H/o Mo<laltaguda village Nandigama Mandal Ranga Reddy District Respondents tfrW \4 d';A 'a JOrNT COMPROMTSE MEMO

1. It is subrnitted that on a complaint lodged by Second Respondent with the Police blandigama RR District they have registered crime No: 250 of 202L against the Petitioners as ,{-6 to A-8 and also other accused for the offences alleged u1s447,427,506 Rws 345 [pc and sec 3 (0 of sc/sr POA Act 2015 and later on filed charge sheet which is taken on file and registere'C as SC SPL 313 of 2022 ancl pending on the file of the learned vtr Addtl District and sessions Judge cum sc-sr At Ranga Reddy District.LB Nagar.

2. It is subnritted that the parties herein have settled the issue amicably since they hail from the same viltage and due to some disputes with A-1 to A-5 who are his agnates the complaint was lodged by the de-facto complainant against 4-6 to A-8 and during the pendency of the said case he has corne to know that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged c,ffences and the village elders and other villagers also have interveneC and settled the issue betrveen the parties and the petitioners and the second respondent have corne for amicable settlement and accordingly ttrey have decided to settle the issue amicably and the second respondetrt has agreed unconditionally to withdrarv the said case. Since the offen()es are non-compoundable the parties herein have approached this Honcrable Court to quash the above crime on the basis of their comprom:lse v.94/ v*^ ::3 :: It is therefore prayed that this Honorabre court may be pleased to record the compromise between the parties here in and to quash the SC sPL 313 of 2022 andpending on the file of the learned vII Addr Diskict and sessions Judge cum Sc-sT At Itanga Reddy District Lts nagar and to pass such other order or orders as this Honorable court *uy arul, fit and proper in the interest of Justice t'-sJ)/ PETITIONER No;2 PETITIONER No;3 Co unsel for Respondent No.2 PE No;1 .-TL Counsel for petitioners RESPONDENT No;2 Hyderabad Dated: .T.20Zs