The High Court · 2025

2. Saadu Kondal Rao, S/o Harinadh Babu, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o. H. No. 2-5427, Road No. 6, Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Hanumakonda. ,..Respondenuoefacto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances statqd in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in Crime. No. 564 of 2020 on the file of Police Station Subedari, Hanumakonda. Saadu Kondal Rao, S/o Harinadh Babu, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o. H. No. 2-5-427, Road No. 6, Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Hanumakonda. Petitioner/Respondent No. 2lDetaclo Complainant AND

1. Mallikarjun Rao Vaka, S/o. Vaka Kondaiah, Age 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Morthadu Village dnd Mandal, Nizamabad District Presently R/o. Flat No.4011, RV Kaustubha APartment, SY jeedimetla, Medchal- Malkajgiri District- No. 121P & 122P, PiPe Line Road, 500055. ...RespondenUPetitioner/Accused No' 1 The State of felangana, Rep by its Public Prosector, High Court Bldgs, Hyderrrbad Petition under section 359(6) R/W 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstancers stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the nijn Corrt may be pteased permit the Petitioner and Respondent_ No.2 to coinpound trre offences in Crime. No 564 of 2O2O on thefile of Police Subedari, Hanumakoncla for the offences under Section 306 R/w. 511, IPC against the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 3 be quashed. ..RespondenuProsecution -. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 petition under Section 359(2) RA/V 528 of BNSS Act praying that in the circumstancers stated in tre Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hijn Court rnay be pleased to record the compromise in the above case for qu"ashment cf Crime. No. 564 of 2O2O on the file of the Police Station Subedari at Hanumakoncla for the offences under Section 306 R/w. 511, IPC against the petitioner/Accused No. 1 with the Respondenv complainant in the above criminal Petition. This F,etition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Oriminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S Praveen, Advocate for.the petitioner and the Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The 6ourt made the following: ORDER l : I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA l.A.Nos.2&3of2025 inland CRIMINAL PETITION No'{4400 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: l.ThisCriminalPetitionisfiledunderSection52SofBNSS, 2023seekingtoquashtheproceedingsagainstthe petitioner/accusedNo'linCrime'No'564of2020'onthefileof Police Station Subedari, Hanumakonda registered for the offence punishable under sections 420' 306 r/w' 51 1 of IPC' 1860'

2.ltissubmittedbylearnedcounselforthepetitioneriaccused No.1 as well as respondent No.2 that during pendency of the present CriminalPetition'thepartieshavecompromisedthematterand agcordingly,l.A.Nos.2&3of2025havebeenfiledbyrespondent No.2/defactocomplainantseekingpermissiontocompoundthe offences, to record compromise and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the above crime'

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the compromise Petition'

4.sincethepartieswerewillingtoenterintocompromise,they were given a chance to settle the matter by appearing along with , I t 2 EfD,J l.A.Nos.2 & 3d2025 in/ond Crlp.No7440A ol 2025 their respective counsel before the High Court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana vide orders dated 07.11.2025 passed by this Court. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall identify the parties and submit a report to that effect.

5. 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 Telangana and the secretary of the above said Authority identified the parties and submittej a report dated 12.11.2025 stating that the parties were identified and they have willfully, without any coercion, entered into compronrise.

6.. lt is pertinent to state that originally, the case was filed under sections 420, 306 rtw. 511 of lPC, 1860, but subsequenfly, the alleged rtictim survived and was discharged from the hospital on o5.12.20i20. The learned counsel for petitioners has filed the Dischargr-. summary along with memo. The instructions obtained from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also confirmed the same. since the alleged victim is alive, section 306 of IPC does not get attrac'ted. Thus, the parties have sought the permission of this Court to c:ompromise the matter. 3 FTD,I l.A.Nos.2&joJ2025 in/ond Crlp.Nol 4OO oJ 2025

7. ln view of the above, l.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2025 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime.No.564 of 2020, on the file of Police Station Subedari, Hanumakonda, are hereby quashed subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the Telangana High Court Bar Association, Hyderabad and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the High Court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana, 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/. N SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The VI Additional Judicial First class Magistrate.at warangal' 2. The Station nouie Officer, Subedari Poliie Station, Hanumakonda District' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings' at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri S Praveen, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies a (Enclosed Joint Memo) DL/PSL Notq TotalAmount of Rs. 10;000/- ( Rupees Ten thousahd onl'y ) has been paid by Sri S. praveen, Counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 as Rs.5,OOO/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the ,,Telangana High court Bar Association, Hyderabad, and Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the High court Legal services committee for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad and filed Memo as proof of compliance USR No' 142348 of 2025 dated 09-12-2025. w t.. 1 I I i I HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 COMMON CRDER l.A. Nos.2 & 3 of 2025 ln/And CRIMINAL NO: 14400 OF 2025 { HES r, 2 ? JAil 2026 Z .1. .. CJ c) (. * I IJT,AT-' ALLOWINGi l.A. Nos.2 & 3 OF 2025 AND CRIMINAL PETITION g,c €J> X.. MEMORANDUMPF CRIMINAL PETITION (UNDER sEC.3,Zd(2) R/W.528 OF BNSS) IN THE HOIV'BLE HIG COURT F'OR THE STATE oF TELANGANA AT :: HYDERABAD BETwEEN: CRL. P. No.l, /tk"o OF 2O2S Mallikarjun Rao Vaka S/o. VaJ<a Kondaiah, Age 46 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Morthadu Village and Mandal, , Nizamabad District Presently R/o- Flat No-402, RV Kaustubha Apartment, Sy. No. 12lP &, 122p, pipe Line Road., jeedimetla, Medchal- Malkajgiri District- 500055. AND ...Petitioner/Accused No. 1 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public prosecutor, High Court Bldgs, Hyderabad . . .Respondent/ Prosecution Saadu Kondal Rao, S/o Harinadh Babu, ' Aged about 28 years, Occ: pvt. Employee, R/o.H. No. 2-5-427, Road No.6, Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Hanumakonda . . Respondent/ Defacto Complainant JOINT MEMO OF TERMS OF o AND EF FOLLOWING: 1 It is submitted that based on the complaint of the Respondent No. 2, a case in crime No.564 of 2o2o was registered before pS subedari and the chargesheet is filed against the TWo people and they arrayed as Accused. No. lto 4 in s.c. No. sg of 2o2s and have I approache(l the Hon'ble High Court vide Crl. P. No. 625L of 2024 and Crl.P. No. 11446 of 2025 and the Hqn'ble High Court was pleased to quash the proceedings against them. In the meantime, the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 compromised the matter.

2. It is submitted that with the intervention of the elders on both sides i.e., ()omplainant and Accttsed No. 1 settled the above issue amicably arrd the Complainant agreed to withdraw the case against Accused Nc. 1

3. That r:he De facto Complainant has agreed that the Petitioner herein is ncwhere connected to his father's suicide attempt

4. It is also agreed between both the parties that they shall not initiate an)' kind of criminal and civil proceedings against each other.

5. That the Respondent No. 2lDefacto Complainant shall not claim anything against the Petitioners herein in future.

6.. That the Respondent No. 2/Complainant has no objection to quash the proceedings under Section 306 R/w.511, IPC in Crime No. 564 of 2O2O on the file of Police Subedari, Hanumakonda against the Petitioner herein. 7 ' Both the parties d.eclare that all their claims on all matters have been fully and finally settled and both the parties hereby undertake not to initiate any proceedings civil or criminal. Hence, it is prayed by both the parties that this Honbre court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime .No. 564 of 2020, on the fire of the porice station subedari, at Hanumakond" and pass such other order or orders as this Hon,bre court deems fit and proper in the interests ofjustice. Hyderabad Date: ry1lplz.( PETITIONER/Accused No. I Respondent No. 2/ Defacto Complainant J. ? Counsel for the petitioner. - Counsel for the R.Spondent No.2