✦ High Court of India · 07 Oct 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 07 Oct 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

07 Oct 2025

Bench

Not available

Length

1,846 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §359 Indian Penal Code §323 Indian Penal Code §323 and 506 Indian Penal Code §506

Petition under Section 359 (6) of B.N.S.S. of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crimin'ar Fetition, the High court may be preased to permit the petitioner/2nd respondenuoe-ialto c_omplainant to compound the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 lPc against the respondent No. 1/petition erlAccused in c.c. No. 1166 of 2025 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 359 (2) of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvremorandum of Grounds of crim'inai nJtition,tne niln Court may be pleased to record the compromise the case with tte Petitioner/accused and the proceedings against the petrtioner/accuseo may ue quashed in c.c.No. 1 166 of 2025 on the fite of the xrv Additionar chief lr,4etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO: 119 820F 2025 Between: rvrohammed Iqbar Ari Khan. s/o rvroham'ned Hyder Ari Kh.r1 Age about.2Tvears occ.Advocate Rto . 9-4-134tN 18 Aruna corony i iomLs n".o sr.iirpi,il"ob-obii' " AND .PEJTITIONER/ACCUSED 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, lli3h Court of Telangana at llydeiabad Bodi Hanumanthu, S/o Late B.Balaswamy, Age about 4l; ,r'ears Occ supervisor Rt/o H No 1 0-4-B _D t 1 j 3t st raiSNZgaiAJi rri,'tt" East[\,4arredpally. Secunderabad ...RESpONDENT/ DE-facto Complainant Pelition under Section 52g of B.N.S.S praying that in the circumstances stated in the N4emorandum of Grounds of criminar iefiilon, the High court mav-Je pLe_a-sed to quash the proceedings against the petitionerTAccL. seO ln C.C.ruo. it OO of 2025 on the file of rhe XtV Ad;itio;at Chief frrf"t.pofit"n lr4agistrate, Hyderabad I.A. NO:1 oF 202s Petition under Section _4g2 of Cr p C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal peiition, thr: High Court may be pleased to stay art further proceedings incruding t,e afpeararce of the petitioner /accused in c.c.No 1'166 0f 2025 0n trre oi-tne Xl!, Additionar chief !letropolitan Magrstrate, Hyderabad, pending disjosal of the main Criminat Petition 'iite This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tf e Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearrng the arguments rf sri vEERENDER sINGH RANA,Advocate for the petitioner in crr.petition and I*:spondent No.1 in l.A.Nos 2 and 3 of ZO2S and the Addl. pubtic prosecuto_ on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in Crl.petition and Respondent No.2 in LA.Not; 2 and 3 of 2025 and of Sri Syeda Sakina Butool, Advocate for the Respondent \rr. 2 The Court made the foltowing COMMON ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 in/and CRIMINAL PETITION No.1 1 982 ot 2025 COMMON ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1166 of 2025 on the file of learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC').

2. lt is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused as well as respondent No.2lde faclo complainant that during pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter and accordingly, l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 have been filed seeking to compound the offence, to record the compromise and to quash the proceedings in the above CC

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

4. Perused the affidavits filed by the de facfo complainant in l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 which disclose that he has willingly 2 -]- Lt+r t19 )D5 consented for compromise. Since the parties were rvilling 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 for the State of Telangarra yide orders dated '16.09.2025 passed by this Court. The Secrelary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall identify the partier; and submit a report to that effect

5. Pursuant to the above said direction lssued by lhis 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 lhe parties and submitted a report dated 22.09.2025 stating that the parties were ldentified and they have willfully and without any ccercion entered into compromise as per the terms of compromise.

6. ln view of the above, l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1166 o'f 2025 on the file of learned XtV Adrjitional Chief lt4etropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashr:d subject to the petitioner/accused paying an amount of Rs.5,000/, (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Secretary, High Court Lr:qal Services 3 ETD. J L:rlp I198) )025 Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and Rs.5,0001 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana Bar 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/- T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To

1. The XIV Additional Chief tt/etropolitan N,4agistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Madhurana Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to SRl. VEERENDER SINGH RANA Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s. Syeda Sakhina Butool, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) (along with a copy of joint memo of compromise) Notc: Total Amount oI Rs. 10,000- (Rupees Ten Thousand only ) has been paid by Sri Veerender Singh Rana, counsel for the Petitioncr as directed by the Hon'blc Court vide order dated 7-10-2025 as Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Fivc thousand only ) to thc Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committce, High CoLrrr lirr rhc Sratc of Telangana, Hydcrabad and Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupccs Five Thousand only ) trr thc Telangarna Hrglt Court Bar Association, I{yderabad and filed Memoas ProoIcompliancc tJSRNo. I21991 of 2025 dated 28-10-2025. HIGH COURT DATED:07/10/2025 COMMON ORDER l.A. NOS. 2 AND 3 0F 2025 IN/AND CRLP.No.11982 of 2025 .-a ?.\ ! ';:-.i- l,', li. 't LI ?$? t( '). :ii / J N LLOWTNG 1'IIE I.A, NOS. 2 AND 3 OF 2O]5 AND CRL. PETITION ,n\ U-' nK- d. I I q I ;, MEMORANDUM OF CzuMINAL PETITION (Under Section 359 (6) of B'N'S'S) IN THE HTGH COURT F1OR THE STATE OF TELANGAI{A AT HYDERABAD c 1r Crl.P.No. of2025 of 2025 I.A.No. N 1 a, Between: Bodi Hanumanthu, S/ o LateB.Balaswamy, Age about : 45 Years Occ : SuPervisor R/o:H.No 1O -+-8-D I lI375l lACSNagar Addagutta,EastMarredgally, Secunderabad ...Petitioner/Respondenl No-2/De-facto complainant And 1 2 Mohammed Iqbal Ali Khan S/o Mohammed HYder Ali Khan Age ab out:27YearsO c c : Advo cate R/o : 9-4-134 I Al 18 Aruna ColonY 7 Tombs Road ShaikPet 5OO0O8 ...Respondent/ Petitioner/ Accused The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad ...Respondents/ResPondent No. 1 PERMISSION - PEf,ITION It is humbly submitted that the petitioner is the sole 1. accused in C.C. No. 1166 of 2025 pe.nding on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, arising out of Crime No. 353 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 IPC on the basis of a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein. The police, after due investigation, hled a charge sheet and the matter is presently pending for trial' It is hurnbly subrnitted tl.at the gravanlen of the 2. allegations in the complaint was that on 27'll'2o23, during the course of performance of duties by the 2'd respondent at S.S. Pinnacle Aparlments, Ameerpet, the petitioner.allegedly assaulted and abused him, thereby attracting ttLe ingredients of Sections 323 and 506 IPC' These offences' though cognizable by nature, are not of grave or heintxrs character but are of a private and personal nature between the complainant and the accused' It is submitted that subsequent to the liling of the charge 3. sheet, the petitioner an<l the 2nd respondent have' through the intervention of elders and well-wishers, amir:ably resolved their differences. The 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant hasvoluntarilyexecutedanafiidavitbeforethisHon,'lcleCourt afhrming that he has no subsisting grievancr: against the petitioner and that he does not desire to pursu': the criminal case any further. He has further stated that he haS no objection if the offences are compounded and the proceedings quashed. It is respectfully submitted that the offen':e punishable 4. under Section 323 IPC is compoundable by the person against whom the hurt is caused, with the permission of tJle Court' Similarly, the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC (when it does not relate to threat to cause dea:h or grievous hurt, etc.) is also compoundable by the person intimidated' with the permission of the Court' Therefore, this Honble Court is empowered to accord permission to <:ompound the said offences when the complainant himself has voluntarily consented for such comPounding- I

5. It is humbly submitted that the continuance of criminal proceedings despite a genuine and voluntary compromise between the parties would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The object of criminat law is not only to punish but also to maintain harmony and peace in societ5r. Since the dispute in the present case is purely personal and private in nature, the parties have buried their differences, and tire complainant has chosen not to prosecute the matter, it is just and proper that the offences be permitted to be compounded. It is humbly submitted that the de-facto 6. complainant/2"d respondent herein has voluntarily sworn an afhdavit placing on record his no-objection for compounding of the offences and has categorically aIlirmed that the compromise has been entered into without any coercion or undue influence. In tJre circumstances stated above, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/2"d respondent/de-facto complainalt to compound the offences punishable under Sections 323 and. 506 IPC against the respondent No.1/petitioner/Accused in C.C. No. 1166 of 2025 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Hyderabad Date:12 .O9.2025 B-.4M Counsel for the Respondent Ndr

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

Find similar cases Start drafting free

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

More cases under Code of Criminal Procedure