The High Court · 2025

Petition under 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 OUASH the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in S.C. No. 24 of 2022, arising out of Crime No 311 of 2021 , registered by P.S. Chilkalguda, and now pending on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Fast - Tracking Cases relating to Atrocities against Women l- cum X Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under 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 STAY all further proceedings in S.C. No. 24 of 2022, arising out of Crime No. 311 ol 2021, registered by Chilkalguda Police Station, pending before the Honble Special Sessions Judge for Fast-Tracking Cases relating to Atrocities against Women -l- cum-X Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, against the Petitioner/Accused, during the pendency of the present petition, I l I I i I h-. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing ll : Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunr, nts of Sri RAHUL SHIVRAM MANE ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Pr )lic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and none appear for the Resg,r ndent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.l4342 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2Q23 (for short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.31 1 of 2021 , pending before the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-l-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 of the tndian Penat Code, 1860.

2. Heard Mr.Rahil Shivram Mane, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No,1-State and Sri Vishal Reddy Muddam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant were in a consensual relationship and the petitioner has promised to marry her. The present complaint was lodged by respondent No.2/de-facto , I complainant when the petitioner was not coming forward to marry i I 2 E'fD, J Crl.P _14342 2025 her. However, the parties have compromised the m: ter and wanted to get married and filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2( 25 seeking to compromise the matter and to compound the offerrr es. The said applications were dismissed by this Court ylc( order dated l

06.11.2025 in view of the guidelines laid down by fir r Hon,ble Apex Court in lhe Sfate of Madhya pradesh Vs. La. .mi Narayanl - Learned counsel further submitted that the compla rt was lodged under a misapprehension of fear that the petitioner r ight not marry her, but the petitioner remains willing to do so. l- ence, learned counsel prayed this Court to quash the proceedirrr s against the petitioner to facilitate the proposed marriage so that f e parties may lead a peaceful married life.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 did no. cbject for the same and represented that respondent No.2 is willirrr to marry the petitioner. He stated that the complaint was filed o t of fear and misunderstanding, and since the petitioner has agreec to marry her, she does not wish to pursue the case further. ' herefore. he requested this Court to pass appropriate orders. t AIR 2019 sc 1296 3 ETD, J Crl.P _14342 ,2025

5. Both the parties are present before the Court observing the proceedings.

6. Perused the material available on record.

7. The contents of the complaint point out allegations against the petitioner that he induced the victim i.e., respondent No.2, by professing love and a promise of marriage, took her to an OyO hotel and had entered into a physical relationship with her. The respondent No.2 is alleged to have continued with the relationship on the promise of marriage. The said relationship continued till ] ) January 2025, but since then, the petitioner is aJleged to have started avoiding her and eventually blocked her contact number, 1 I prompting the present complaint.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for both parties that the petitioner is willing to marry respondent No.2 and that she has accepted his proposal, after the above discussed turmoil, this Court finds no justification in continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.C.No.31 1 of 2021 , pending on 4 ETI], J Ctl.P 14341 2025 the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Fast ''rackinQ Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-l-cum-X Additio ral [Ietropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pen<l rg, if any, shall I stand closed. //TRUE COPY// I D/.B.REKHA RANI ASSIS IANT REGISTRAR \*/ ,' r-;r ' ] iECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Special Sessions Judge for Fast - Tracking Cas:; relating to Atrocities against Women I - cum X Additional Metro I rlitan Sdssions Judge, Hyderabad

2. The Station ilouse Officer, Police Station Chilkalaguda. l- yderabad 3. One CC to SRl. RAHUL SHTVRAM MANE Advocate [Opl- 3] 4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High court for tt r state of Telangana at Hyderbad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies y. AG/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 /' /. :-' t! ;-) l; 't _7, 22 tti 2115 i., -\t'r,/' - ,,:, ORDER CRLP.No.14342 ot 2025 CRLP IS ALLOWED IN THE HIGH COIIRT FQR THE STATE OF i;q;ruo. , o3-. TEI4NGANA AT HYDERABAD. .: , "oF 2025-. . , IN fr-{ 1q IN CRL.P.No. F 2A25 sc No. 24. OF ,, 2022 (on the Fire of Hon'bre speciar.sessrons Judge For Fast rracking the cases rerating to Atrocities asainsr Women-rc.r1 r1ajinZ;.ilffi #;ns Judse. Hyderabad, Registered at p.S. Chilkalguda) ;i i l ! I , I I t I ! : , , : I ,. Between: I:1?:o,er9^thalip,iDlo. D.'satvanaid'/ana, rr:" Aged about 25 yrs. Occ: pW Job, Y-o H. No, 12_-11-1159, Boudhanagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad ...."eetitionerTnespondent/De_facto : ' . Complainant AND Biradar Panduranga S/o. Gpvind Rao Aged about 30 years, Ocg:-pvt Emplovee Ri/o. plot No. 91, H.No. i_?92-/L, subash Nagar, IDA, Jeedimeua, Ranga neOOV OistriA. '-"-..iAurporidenVpetitioner/Accused The State of Telangana, Represented by public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hydera AND bad. ... Respondent/Compla i nant I E M UN ED Y Both the parties respectfury submit that the above mafter has been amicabry settred out of court. The dispute between the petitioner/Accused and the Respondent No. 2/de facto Complainant has been amicably resolved voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence from any person. E The Respondent No. 2/de facto Complainant has no objection if this Hon',bre court is preased to take on record the said amicabre settrement and quash the proceedings in s.c. No. 24 0f 2o22,arising out of crime No. 311 of 2021, registered by p.s. chirkarguda, and a[ consequentiar proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Special Sessions Ju lge for Fast- Tracking Cases relatlng to Atrocities against Women-I-cum X Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, against the Petitic rer/Accused, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court nay deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ?"/, Petitioner/ Accused (Biradar Panduranga) 0 /,/ A,O , ^'t Respondent No.2/.De-Facto 3omplainant (Kum Da r era Shalini) Counsel for Petitioner/Accused Counsel for Resp n cto lomplainant Place: Hyderabad Date: jo .10.2025