The High Court · 2025

Petitron under Section 482 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 call for the records and quash the Charge Sheet against the Petitioner/Accused No.B in C.C.No.475 of 2021 on the file of Judicial First Class lvlagistrate, Alair, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 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 grant stay of all further proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No 8 in C C.No.475 of 2021 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alair, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri Drstrict, pending disposal of the main criminal petition. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Between: Masagoni Balaraju, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 59 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.7-4- 78/2123, Gaganpahad, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. ...Petitioner/2no RespondenUDefacto-Complainant AND 1 M.A.Raheem, S/o Late Sharbuddin, Age: 55 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o Vidhya Nagar, Bhongir Town and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, Presently residing at Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad. ...Respondent No.1 /Petitioner/Accused No.8

2. State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, Hign Oouri for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...Respondent lr o.2/Respondent No.1 Petition under Section 320 Riw 482 of Cr.P.C pray ng that in the circumstances stated in the Permissron petrtron the High Oourt rnay be pleased to permrt the Petitioner/Defacto-complainant to enter int I the compromise to compound the offence against the Respondent Nc 1/Accused No.8 in C.C.No.475 of 2021 on the file of Judicial First Class lrlag slrate AIair, Yadadri- Bhuvanagiri Distrrct, for the offence under sections 386 and 120(E) of IPC. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 320(6) r/w section 482 of Cr. P O praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit Joint Memo alonc with Compromise Petition, the High Court may be pleased to compound th: offence against the Respondent No.1/Accused No.B in C.C.No.475 of 2021 or the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate. Alair Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District for ther offence under sections 386 and 120(3) of IPC in vrew of the compronrise l,etween the parties. Thrs Petition coming on for hearing. upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearrng the argurronts of Mr. Papaiah Peddakula, Advocate foi' the Petitioner and the Mr. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Mr, C. Damodar Reddy, Senior Counsel representing IrIr.C. Ruthwik Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER t I t t E i ! l I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO LA.Nos.l and 2 of2025 IN/AND CRTMINAL PETT TION No.10724 of 2022 CON,I NION ORDER: ThisCrirr'rinalPetitionlrasbeenfiledundersection482ofthe Code of Crirninal Procedurc, 1973 (for short, 'Cr'P'C') by the petitkrner/accLrscd No.8, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.475 of 202 I on thc llle o1' the Judicial First Class Magistratc, Alair, Yadaclri Bhtrvanagiri District, for the offcnccs punishable r.rnder Sections 3U6 and 120(B) ol the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (lor short'lPC').

2. During the pendencl'' of this criminal petition' at the intc|r,cntion of r'r'ell-',v ishcrs and elclcrs, petitioner'/accused No'8 and respondent No.2/de-lacto complainant have entered into cornpromise to resolve the disputes pending between thern and filed .loint affidavit along with I.A.No.2 of 2025 and also filed I'At''No l of 2025 to record the compromise and to compound the offences' T t. \t-.w €4f\E a. 2

3. 'Iodar', the matter is listed under ths caption 'for compromisc'. Petitiouer/accLrscd No.8 and tesp'lndcnt No'2"dc- lacto complaillant arc physicall-v pre serlted bclbl c this Court' I his court interacted rvith responde ut No.2ide-facto c llriplaitrant and hc stated that hc has no objcction quash the pli:'ceedir.rgs C.C.No.475 ol2021 ngainst the pctitioner/accrrseri No i'l 4 Mr.Papayya PeddakLrla. le arned counsel lir' 'lic ::etitiotrcr and Mr.C.Darnoclar Itcdcly, learned Senior C'orl r:;el' replesenting Mr.C.Rutllvill Reddl', lealrred cottnsel lol r':spondent No'2, identified their respectivc palties and thc part'es placcd xerox copies olthcil Aadhal Cards ) Taking into considcration the abol'e lacts e trd c ircutrstanccs including-ioint rnemo fited b,v both the parties. IA'N'rs.l and 2 of 2025 are alkrwed. Consequently. the criminal p:tition is allowed and the proceedings 1n C.C.No.475 of 202 I otr the hlc of the Jirdicial First class Magistrate , Alaii, Yadadri 13lir-rvanagiri Disl.rict, against the petitioner/acctrsed No.8 are hereby cluashed, subject to the condition that the petitioner/accused No.8 shrlI pa1' an amount .-j."=..r; *l. 3 of Rs.10,000i- ro thc Tclangana Iligh Court Lcgal Services Authority within a period ol one week fiom today' Pending tniscellarreotts applications, if any, shatI stand closed SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -, //TRUE COPYi/ To, (

1. The Judicial First Class lVlagistrate. Alair. Yada 2. The Station House Officer, Yadagrrigutta Bhuvanag iri District. at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Mr Papaiah Peddakula, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Mr C Ruthwrk Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies

3. Two CCs to the Publrc Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana SECTION OFFICER huva nagiri District. lice Station, Yadadri (Along with a Copy of Jornt Memo of Compromise) Total Amount of Rs. 10,0001 ( Rupees Ten thousand only ) has been paid by lvlr. Papaiah Peddakula, Counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 24-11-2025 to the Telangana High Court Legal Services Authority and filed Memo as proof of compliance USR No.137779 ot 2025 and dated 01-12-2025 Kam/NVB HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 ( rE r{ u! I S -\ ( I i ; o \ 0 IH i .... .1, <tii ././' ,, COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos.1 and 2 ot 2025 IN/AND CRLP.No.10724 of 2022 BOTH l.As AND GRIMINAL PETITION ARE ALLOWED 4 J, -€e@Fy ,&,.4 ,, €'l,J 1 i i ! , i I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD Crl.P.No. 10724 oF 2022 Between M.A.Raheem S/o Late Sharbuddin, tg"9,55 years, Occ: Advocate, flo.Vi.O.nya Nagar, Bhongir Town and t\Iandat, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri Disirict, Presently residing at Bandalguda, Nagole, Hyderabad AND ...Petitioner/Accused No.8 State of Telangana, I:q !V its Pubtic prosecuror, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Masag_oni Balraju S/o Venkataiah, 19"9.!9 years, Occ. Business, H I" 7-4-ZBt2t23, Gasanpahad, I1q Ka1endranagar, Ranga Reddy District ...Respondent No.1 ... Respondent No.2/Defacto_Compla inant 1 2 JOINT MEMO F AND ILED RESPO ON BE HALF OF THE PETITI ONER/ ACCUSED No.8 NDENT No,2/D o-coM PLAIN ANT EFACT 1' rt is submitted that petitioner fired the above criminar petition to quash the charge sheet in c c.No. 475 0f 2021 0n the fire of Judiciar First crass [\rlagistrate, Arair, yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, for the offence under sections 386 and 120(8) of lPC, registered against them pursuant to the complaint lodged by 2nd respondenVDefacto_Complainant. 2' I further submit that the defacto-comprainant rodged the comprainant including the'Accused No.8 along with others, in view of the monetary issues betw-een him and the Accused No.B who is their counser in t*o "rit. rn one part ahd mednwhire, when the defacto-comprainant approached the Accused No'9, seeking advice regarding the settrement threats made by the h.A. n" (,I- l i I I l I j ,] gang of Nayeem, he : Itffil: J: J"", ffi : :TJ:#:::' """' bu'f wi'lhou'[ r""'J"nv wrong impression as them, rodged ti,u .o, Accused tto.s aovisu.:plaint from the curprits. nru,,'o''' and we[_wisher" or tn" I withdraw the compraint reasons above. Hence tried in view of ,n" ,",Jlur" necessary in tne interestlement 386 and e,(B) of,ra ,, on the fire of Judicial District. '", without ,r;.;",t= to protect 'nl'nl"''nn rearized the same, ,; o'' both the o"n'"'' voluntarily 'n" n't gang but the defacto- Acr;r:sed No 8 supported the fact that as the ot t^u defacto-complainant tlter presence of the ekiers agreed to "t *" .r,olaoto-cclirlplainant i. no "i,rn."l ;;;t '""t resulted onlv for the even if the case is betwe"' ;; ;-ttvtction nt'n"u' it is iust and offence under sections rn c c.No. 4rs of 201r.1 Iair, yadadri_Bhuvanagiri o'i"""" to toroo*iJ',"u"' rd quash rn" ar"L" rn.nr: :irst class furagistrate, oei

3. lt is therefore pr ;fir :1ff :jffi[::;..F:" Iil":JJT:r i,,u, be p ea s ed h, of lF'c and quash ther rl,Jucriciar First crass pasr; suc;h other order or rpel in the circumstances IVlagistrate, ntair yaoaol -475 orders as this Hon,bre a_i_Bhuvanag,n of the case. of 2021 onti" lot*' o,or,", )urt may deem fit and prc "rore Hyderabad. Date:12_11_2025 (Peti;:elA c<;used N counst-.rd;ffi*,",".. (2nd Respond"rd;;Himprainanr) .",,S,&Xlp"ko",o",, i E