The High Court · 2025

[r p.qn{g-ddy Krishna Reddy, S/o Late Sunkireddy Narayana Reddy, R/o Flat No.202, Divya Apartments, Srinagar Colony, Hyderaliad ...Petitioner/Respondent No.2 in l.A.Nos.l & 2 ot 2O2S AND 1 Syed Qadeer, S/o Syed Aziz, Aged 31 years, 1517915, Diamond Shastri Puram, SVPPNPA, District500052. OccBusiness, R/o H.No.8- Gaganpahad, Rangareddy ...Petitioner/Accused in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 ot 2025

2. The State of Telang.ana, Rep by its Public prosecutor, High Court Building, at Hyderabad. Through PS Narsingi, Cyberabad, Ranga Reldy District. ...RespondenURespondent No.1 in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2O25 Petition under section 359 (6) BNSS 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioner herein/Respondent No-2/Defacto- complainant to compound the offences with the respondent/petitioner. Under section 319 (4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 329(3) & 351(2) BNS Act, 2023 in FtR.No.t402 of 2024, dated 2010912024 on the file of PS, Narsingi, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of justice. I.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 359(2) BNSS 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to record the terms of compromise between the Petitioner herein and Respondent herein and euash the proceedings in FlR. No.1402 of 2024, dated 20-09-2024 on the file of pS, Narsingi, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District for the offences under section 318(4), 338, eaO(i), S+O(Z), 329(3) & 351(2) BNS Act,2023 against the respondent/petitioner in the interesi of Justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri c.Kumar, and Sri Turaga D.Narayana Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1, and of Sri Y.Maheswar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Gourt made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.A.Nos. 'l AND 2 OF 2025 ln/And CRIMINAL PETITION No.1'1822 OF 2024 COMMON ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No. 1402 of 2024 o'f Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District

2. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused person in the Crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2),329(3), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for shorl 'the BNS')

3. Heard Mr. C.Kumar and Mr. Turaga D.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramaila, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.'l-State and Mr. Y. Maheswar, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facfo complainant.

4. Pending this petition, the parties have entered into the compromise and, accordingly, they moved l.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2025 with the prayer to permit them to enter into compromise and by recording the settlement to - 2 ^&/ IA.Nol / and2 of 2025 in/and Crl.PNa 11822 of2021 quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No. 1402 of 2024

5. This court v/de orders dated 20.03.2025 referred the parties to the High court Legal services committee for identification and to verify the voluntariness in arriving the setflement. The secretary, High court Legal services committee, has submitted report dated 26.03.2025 stating that the parties were identified by their respective counsel and also on verification of Aadhar cards/ldentity cards and the enquiries revealed that the parties have willfully and without coercion entered into settlemenUcomprom ise.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record.

7. The police report is fired by respondent No.2/de facro comprainant alleging that the petitioner/accused made an application for permission to construct a building by producing fabricated document in respect of the open land in Sy.No.93/a/'l11 , admeasuring444.44 square yards, situated at Alkapoor Township, Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Manikonda Municipality, and the same is rejected as he is not having varid tifle and interest over the subject prot. Subsequenfly, the de facto comprainant got dis,connected the electricity connection obtained by the petitioner/accused \ .,:. 3 Nrr&/ IA.Not- 1 ad 2 o;f 2025 in/and Crl.P.No. I t 822 af 2021 illegally without any valid documents and on 10.09.2024, on filing a protest petition by the de facto complainant before the Sub-Registrar, Gandipet, who had wrongly registered the plot in the name of the petitioner on the basis of NALA conversion, which is against the rules, after examining the facts, the Sub-Registrar had blocked further transactions and put the sale deed of the petitioner in the prohibited list and summoned the claimant and executant. Thereafter, on 14.08.2024, the petitioner along with unsocial elements tried to erect blue sheets in the plot of de facto complainant without any legal right and interest over the plot and they also threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences.

8. Considering the fact that the issue between the parties is in regard to immovable property and as there was amicable settlement between the parties and having regard to the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, in the light of the dictums in Gian Singh v. State of Puniab and anotherl and Anil Mishra v. State of tJ.P.2; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others3, this Court is of the considered view that quashment of the impugned proceedings in view of the settlement by | 2012 (1O) SCC 303 'z zoz4 INSC 189 3 2019 (s) scc 688 4 NTR,/ I/.Not. / and 2 of 2025 n/ aad Cr/.P.No. I t 822 af 2021 exercising jurisdrction under section 482 cr.p.c.ts28 of BNSS, 2023, would be in the interest of justice.

9. Accordingly, l.A.Nos..l and 2 of 2025 are allowed. Consequenfly, all proceedings in 1402 of 2024 of Narsingi police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/accused

10. Resultantly, the Criminal petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG S TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, l The Xllr Judiciar Magiskate of First crass cyberabad at Raiendranaoar 2. The station House dffic.er, l,rarsingt Foiice-6ir1;;, cfi;r;L;rurorrovdr 3' Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor:High co;;iirite'st"t"-orrerangana at 1 9n" CC to Sri C.kumar, Advocate IOPUCI 5. One CC to Sri y.Maheswar, Advocate [O-iUCl 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTI NVLI/gh ,41,ry'- .: t_- ,, l HIGH COURT DATED:2610612025 COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos.1 And 2 ot 2025 ln/And CRLP.No.11822 ot 2024 c (1 r{. _) ', ,,) ). 0I SEP 205 --i .: /) ,^ , j.2. :2' ALLOWING THE CRLP AND l.A.Nos.l & 2 OF zOZs q \ t I I l 1 I I I I I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD w CRLP No. t1822 OF2024 Between: Syed Qadeer S/o Syed tuiz, Aged 31 years, Occ : Business, R/o H.No.8-15/7915, Diamond Hiils, Sf astri Puram, SVPPNPA, Gaganpahad, R. R.District-500052 And

1. The State ofTelangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, at Hyderabad. Through PS Narsingi, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. .. Petitioners/Sole Accused

2. Mr.Sunkireddy Krishna Reddy .:r : S/o Late Sunkireddy Narayana Reddy, R/o Flat No.202, Diyya Apartments, ::.:: srinagarcolony,Hyderabad. ..,Respondents/Defacto-comprainant NT OM EMO

1. It is respectfully submitted that the 2nd respondent filed complaint against Petitioner/sole Accused aileging offences Under section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2),329(3) & 351(2) BNS Act,2o23 inter-alia alleging that he along with others are the owners and possessors of plot No.9, admeasuring 439-00 sq. yards in survey No.93/A, situated at Alkapoor Township, Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Manikonda Municipality, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same from Madupu Ramesh @ Madupu Ram prasad vide Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.10318 & 10319 of 2024, both dated 24-07-2o24registered in the office of S.R.O.Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District. Pelitioner '<.'. Resporid ent No.2 ' v ) 2

2. It was further aileged in the said compraint that, their vendors Madupu Ramesh obtained permission for construction of building in respect of the Northern and southern side of prot No.g, admeasuring 23g-00 and 200-00 sq. yards respectively, both on 03-07-2024. Further it was aileged that, the petitioner had also made an apprication dated 09-08-2024 for construction of buirding permission by producing the fabricated document in respect of open Land in survey No.93lEltlt, admeasuring 444.44 sq. yards situated at Alkapoor Township, Naknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Julanikonda Municipality, Ranga Reddy District and the same was rejected without having any varid title, right, interest in and over the prot No.g and he trying to grab their prot with the herp of anti-social elements and that on o6-09-2024 he qot removed erectricity connection after verifying that the petitioner produced wrong documents.

3. It was arso aileged that, on 10-0E'-2024 he had arso flred protest petition before Gandipet s.R.o. for wrongry rdgistering the documents in favour of petitioner and after examining the facts, the sub-Registrar had blocked the further transactions and put the sare deed of petirioner in the prohibited rist and summon the petitioner and his vendor to appear before him. Further the 2nd respondent alleged that on 74-08-2024 when he went out to his prot, the petitioner arong with unsocial elements, trying to erect blue sheets without any right and interest in and over the plot No.g and that they are also create law and order problem and when he requested them to not to interfere with his peaceful possession in and around the above said plot, the petitioner threatened them with dire consequences and requested to take action against them and basing on the said report, an FIR. No.1402 of 2024, dated 20-09-2024 on the fire of ps, Narsingi, cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District was registered against the,petitioner. Petitioner Respondent No.2 6 3 It is respectfully submitted that the pelitioner has approached this Hon'ble 4. CourtseekingtoquashthesaidFIR.No.l402of2024,dated20-09.2024onthe file of PS, t'larsingl, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District and this Hon'ble Court directed the police to follow 35(3) of BNSS so also judgment of Honble Apex Court rendered in Arnesh Kumar. 5. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction vide O'S'No'471 of 2024onthefileoflAddlseniorCivilJudge,R'R'DistrictatL'B'Nagar'agasintthe respondent no.2 and others, While things stood thus' after intervention of the elders and well-wishers of both petitioner and 2nd respondent herein, initially, at theFlRstage,thematterwassettledb-etweenthemandaccordinglytheyhave entered into a compromise in o.s.No.47I of 2024 wherein it was agreed by both thepartiesalongwithotherstotheeffectthat'thedefendantNos'lto5therein including 2,d respondent trave aomittiiit the petitioner's title and possession covered by registered sale deed ' in l:espect of open plot in part of Survey No.93E/U1, (Northern Part) admeasuting 444'44 Square Yeirds or equivalent to 371.55 Square Meters, situated at Alkap,u*f Township, Neknampur Village' Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by regqr.qing a sum of Rs'59'26'500/- from the plaintiffandaccordinglythedefendantNos.lto5releasedandrelinquishingtheir right, title, interest etc., in and over the said plot No'9 in Sy'No'93/{ EurtheS the 2nd respondent who was irrayed as defendant No.4 also gave his consent and n6 objection for closure of crime No.1402 of 2024 of PS Narsingi, the subject matter ofpresentcriminalpetitionbyconsentingforquashingofthesaid'crimeagainst thepetitioner.Furtheraccdrdinglywiththeaboveterms,theyhaveenteredinto jointcompromisetermswhichwasrecordedbeforeHon,ble..LokAdalaton29-01- 2025 vide LAC.No.1B of 2025 and the pqJitioner and 2nd respondent crave leave of thisHon,bleCourttoreadthesaidLokAdalatAwarddated29-01-2025aspartand parcel of this terms of compromise' Petitioner No. 1 n"lpS'mettlG?-- g I 4 \ fro\

6. In view of settling the mattei between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner before the Lok Adalat on 29-01-2025 in LAC.No.1B of 2025, the 2nd respondent agreed to withdraw the case in FIR. No.1402 of 2024, dated 20-09-2024 on the file of PS, Narsingi, cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioner and he has no objection to allow the cRLp.Nc.1tB22 of 2024 by quashing the said FIR.No.1402 of 2024.

7. Henceforth, there shall not be any claims whatsoever against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and that they shall not interfere with their individual lives in any manner whatsoever in future including subject plot.

8. The 2nd respondent shall not file any fresh complaint/s, case/s etc., against the petitioner herein in future concerning the same cause of action. It is therefore prayed that this Horible court may be pleased to record the terms of compromise and quash the proceedings in FIR. No.1402 of 2024, dated 20-09-2024 on the file of PS, Narsingi, cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioner in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Petitioner No.1 e. Respondent No2 Counse for Petitioner Hyderabad Dated: 17-02-2025 Counsel for ndent No.2 i I I I I i I ! I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I ! i a t I