The High Court · 2025

59 years, . (Mother- 4. Sushma @ Yerva Sushma, Wo. paduri Kranti Kumar Reddy, Aged about 36 yeqrs, Q9c. Doctor, FVo. Flat No.S01, Srinivasa Nilayam,'iaf,it..nl-neii, f gtep, _Near Han uman Tempte, eeoaa nmuei[Jt, H]lZt r.i jg"i' R.'C. bilifti 1 501505(Sister-inJawofde-iactocomplainantioiughi;4 ed about ri, u rsri YT:i8 3s1-t#:flt,x5;h,;{}g{-:ffit?"t Lakshma Reddy palem Nagar, R.R. District - complainant's daughter) .. Respondent Nos. 2 to s / pElloNEXy.lJ"T.i._:T rSj! 30F petition under Section 3S9 (6) rtw. 529 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum oi orounas of criminar petition, the High Court may be pteased to permit tne h;;JryR!s.p-lfu:., No.2/Defacto_Complainant to- compound tne offences against the Respondent Nos.2 to S herein/petitio"T:t::1.-:9, Nos. r to + [y-arro*i;g ih" A;ri;;;rp:ffi", by quashing the proceedings against the Accused ilos.1 to 4 in c.c.No.37 0f 2025 Junior civir JuJ;;-";; rrl'"girt,.r1" oi-i"ioib;., SlJi:-:3,rT,Jhel{onourabre -Fetitionei NO: petition under Section 359 (2) rtw. S2B of B.N.S.S.praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum or crJuno..ot c,.i,rii"i'p"ii.i, n" High Court may be pleased to record th; ;;; pelitioner nereiivResponaent r.ro.z76-et""i":c"'iipriilff"#t",'^"j [::r:Lg: Nos.2 to 5 herein/petitioners/Accused ruo".i toJ iI't.c.No.37 0f 20250n the fire u n io r c ivi I J udse-cum-J uo iciai tr,ias istrate or rirsi ir".-",'o,iii" r Stffi J"Jl}f.J o. c Between:

1. ,,iiff tlf,=fr :;Jgli{fi*tfl,}j3"",1Bi[,^f"ifl ji,;,,f ,_:,r"1:B:::1,Hfi :?] "lx*:ag"3yj":,sri,y,"rJ33i:'sffi ll,lsT,ilx,",ff ,i "lg;#rR:":i 4 Palem, Near Hanuman Temple, Pedda Amberpet, Hayat Nagar, R.R. District - 501 505 (Sister-in-law of de-facto complainants daughier) Kranti Kumar @ -Paduri Kranti Kumar L"dt, slp I Ashok Reddy, Aged pbguJ 37 years, o^c9. Pvt.Emp.toyee, R/o. nit ruo.sol, srinivasi Nitayur, !,akshma B"o{y Patem, Near'Hdnu.man Temptg, feddq Ambirpet, Fit;i 'of 'sisteiin-liw -o?-de-racto Nagar, R.R. District - 501 505 (Husband complainant's daughter) AND ... PET|TION ER/ACC USED(S) 1- The state of relangana, p.s.Dubbak, siddipet District, Rep. by the ^Throug-h Public Prosecutor, High court of relangana at Hydeiaoao.-

2. Laxma Reddy G,irnypa, s/.o. Rglqrg.p Re{dy Ganupa, Aged 64 years, occ. Farmer, No.242, Dumpalapally Vittage, Dtibbak tvtirioai,-SiooidJioiitiiii. .. RESPONDENT/COMPLATNANTS Petition under Section 528 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accuse-d Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.37 ol 2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak, Siddipet District These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI ,Advocate for the Petitioners in Crl.petition and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in l.A.Nos. 3 and 4 0f 2025 and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Ms. Anuradha Cherukuri, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in Crl.petition and Petitioner in l.A.Nos. 3 and 4 of 2025. The Court made the following Common Order: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA l.A.Nos.3 AND 4 OF 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITIO No-10463 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.37 of ZO2S on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak, registered for the offences under Section 49BA of l.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Z. Heard Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and [Vls. Anuradha Cherukuri, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. lt is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 4 as well as respondent N.o.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 permit respondent No.2 to compound the offences and to record the comPromise.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the said compromise petition I I I I i : , *-__: _- F -.. ,. 1 ._-J 2 ETD.J Crl.P.No.10463 of 2025

5. Perused the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant in '.j l.A.No.3 of 2025, which discloses that he 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, vide orders, dated 19.08.2025 and 26.09.2025, passed by this Court.

6. 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 relangana and the Secretary of the above said Committee has identified the parties and submitted reports, dated 29.08.2025 and 14.10.2025, stating that the parties were identified and they have wilfully and without any coercion entered into compromise.

7. tn view of the above, l.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2o2s are ailowed. Consequently, this criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in c.c.No.37 of 2025 on the file of learned Junior civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First class, Dubbak, against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby quashed subject to the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 4 paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the secretary, High court Legar services / 3 F.-tt).J C'rl.I'} No I0461 ol'2025 committee, High court for the state of relangana, Hyderabad 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. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shail stand closed /TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL . DEPUW REGISTRAR o SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak. 2. The Station House Officer, P.S.Dubbak Police Station, Siddipet District 3. Two CCs to Addl. Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT). 4- one cc to sRl. NAGESHWAR RAo puJARt Advocate topucl 5. one cc to lvls. ANURADHA CHERUKURI, Advocate topucl 6. Two CD Copies (along with a copy of joint memo of compromise) M Note: Total Amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only ) has been paid by Sri Nageshwarao Pujari. counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the Flon'ble Court vide order dated 27-10-2025 as I{s. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Cornmittee, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hydeiabad and Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand only ) to the Telangana High Court Advocates' Association, Hyderabad and filed \4emo as Proof compliance USR No.127355 of 2025 dated ll-ll-2025. PSL q f-T.{ ,t +. n # I HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 COMMON ORDER l.A. NOS. 3 AND 4 0F 202s IN/AND CRL.PETITION No.10463 ot 2025 rHf- brl ( o 18 t{ri\J zth t , r-l J'il'415r-1 ALLOWING TT{E I.A. NOS. 3 AND 4 OF 2025 AND CRL.PETITION \ \% \l MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (Under Sec. 359(?)rl* 528 of B.N.S.S.) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD I.A. No. w 'ln crr.P. No. (o q [2 of 2O25 of 2O25 Between: Laxma Reddy Ganupa, S/o. Rajaram Reddy GanuPa, Aged 64 years, Occ: Farmer, Rl o.2-42, DumpalapallY Village, Dubbak Mandal, SiddiPet District. 1 2

3. 4 AND The State of Telangana, Through P:S.Dubbak, Siddipet District, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. . Petitioner/Respondent No. 2 ...Respondent No. 1/Respondent No. 1 Rajashekar Reddy @ Yerva Rajashekar Reddy, S/o. Sathi Reddy Yerua, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. 10-349/3, PVN Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, Presently residing at 1901, Knights Bridge Road, Apt#3202, Farmers Branch, Texas-75234 USA. (Husband of the de-facto complainant's daughter) Rep. by his GPA Holder Paduri Kranti Kumar Reddy, S/o. P. Ashok Reddy, Aged about3T years, Occ: Pvt- Employee, R/o. Flat No.501, Srinivasa Nilayam, Lakshma Reddy Palem, Near Hanuman Temple, Pedda Amberpet, Hayat Nagar, R.R. District - 501 505. Sulochana @ Yerva Sulochana,Wlo.Sathi Reddy, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 10-349/3, PVN Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad (Mother-in-law of the de-facto complainant's daughter) Sushma @ Yerva Sushma, ffo. Paduri Kranti Kumar Reddy, Aged about 36 Years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. Flat No.501, Srinivasa Nilayam, Lakshma Reddy Palem, Near Hanuman Temple, ,r Pedda Amberpet, Hayat Nagar. R.R. District - 501 505. (Sister-in-law of de-facto complainant's daughter) 5 Kranti Kumar @ Paduri Kranti Kumar Reddy, S/o. P. Ashok Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. FIat No.501, Srinivasa Nilayam, Lakshma Reddy Palem, Near Hanuman Temple, .Pedda Amtrerpet, Hayat Nagar, R.R. District - 501 505. (Husband of sister-in-law of de-Facto complainant's daughter) ...Respondent Nos.2 to 5/ Petitioners / A1 to A4 COMPROM E PETITION 1. It is submitted that, on receiving the complaint from the Petitioner herein/ Respondent No.2, who is the father-in-law ofthe Respondent No.2/Petitioner No'1, the police registered Crime No.302/2024 dated 04.L1.2024 of P.s.Dubbak, siddipet District, against the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein / Petitioners and after investigation filed charge sheet against them and same is numbered as C'C.No.37 of 2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

2. It is submitted that the present matter arises out of a matrimonial dispute between Respondent No.2/Petitioner No.l/Accused No.1 and the daughter of the Petitioner hereln/Respondent No.2/ de-facto complainant. At the instance of their well- wishers, the dispute has been amicably settlejd out of Court. In light of this settlement, Respondent No.2/Petitioner No.l/Accused No.1 and the daughter of the de-facto cornplainant have mutually agreed to obtain divorce by mutual consent and eithr:r sides families decided to withdraw the cases filed against each other. Therefore, keeping the matter pending would serve no purpose, particularly when the Petitioner herein/ Respondent No.2/ de-facto complainant is not inclined to pursue the case anY further.

3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the continuation of proceedings agalnst the Respondent Nos.2 to 5/ Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C.No.37 of 2025 on the file of the Hon'ble iunior Civil ludge-cum-ludicial Magistrate of I First class, Dubbak, Siddipet District will not serue any purpose and hence desirable to be closed' It is therefo re prayedthat this Hon'ble court may be pleased to record the compromise entered into by the petitioner herein/Respondent No.2/Defacto-Complainant and the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein/Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.37 of 2025 on the file of the Hon'ble lunior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First class, Dubbak, Siddipet District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Coutt may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Place: Hvderabad fi.os.zozs Counsel for Petitioner/Respondent No.2/ Defacto-comPlainant {,a, kq Respondent No.2/Petitioner No. 1/ Accused No.1 Y 9''"u^* Respondent No.4/Petitioner No.3/ Accused No.3 /.c counser t{#rffiJ{ii, r r, or Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 Petitioner/Respondent No. 2/ Defacto-complainant Y 5..1 oJ^o,*-o. Respo ndent No. 3/Petitft,?lrT?;ii /k-r, lc-1.L9- Respondent No. 5/pet itGer No.4/ Accused No.4