The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, rep.by its public prosecutor, High Court of T.S.

2. Seekolu prudvi Teja, S/o. Rajendra prasa4 .age. 34 years. Occ.pvt Emprovee, nlo o.l'io+-ji ttodizi'ie'rnT rgn. Hasini Reddv Niravam, Alwyn Colony. Near Jeevan .lV"iniS"f,.'o"i.'Ir*rtprtty. Hyderabad_500b72 ,..RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED Petition under section.3jg (6) BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds cridi'iii'p"tition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitionerle."r."i i" compound the compromise "t between petitioner and the n"rpono*t- rio) i"r"in rn criminal petition No.15260 of 2024 on the fite of tnts i_ion;Ute'"o;;: ' t.A. NO: 20 F 2025 Petition under Section .3:g (2) BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds cli,.Ii"ii.p"tition, the High court may be pleased to record the compromi."l"-cJp.r.ro" 15260 of 2024 andquash the "r proceedings in pRC. No.46 of 2o2o on tre riie oitire court of the xrv Additionar Metropolitan Magistrate a:,rl T:lnl n"OOV O-iriri"t ,t Kukatpaily for aileged offences under section 417, 420, ezo, s6ol lbs tpc l.-i;',rigii iilh" compromise entered into by and between the parties This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\,emorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri M HAMSA RAJ, Advocate for the petitioner and sri. sUREpALLT pRASHANTH, Assistant Public Prosecutor, on beharf of the Respondent No.'r and t\4s. K ASHWTNT TARA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI I.A.Nos .1and 2 of 2025 IN/ AND CRIMIN AL PETITION No .L5260 oF 2024 coMMON ORDER: This Criminal I'etitior-r is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatil'a Nagaril< Suraksha Sanhita (for shorL 'BNSS) by petitioner to quash the proceedings against him in PI?C.No.46' ol 2O2O on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court' Ranga Reddy District' at KukaLPallY

2. Heard Mr' M'Hamsa Raj' learned counse i for petitioner, Ms K'Asht'ini 'lara Reddy' learneri counscl l.---rr respond.ent No'2 and Mr' Surepalli Prashanth' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State Perused the material on record'

3. An FIR No.613 of 2019' dated 2l'09 2019' came to be registered in Jagadgirigutta Police Station' Cyberabad districtonthcbasisofthecomplaintfiledbyrespondent No.2. Charge Sheet clated 20 'O3 '2O2O came to be filed for ) .I,A K. J cRI_P I-i260_t02.1 Lne oltcnce s of IPC under Sections 376, 506. 417, 42O and 1Og

1. It is su bln it tecl b-y learneci counsel appearing for during penclenc_v* of havc compromised Petition, parties that, p e titione r and r-espondent No.2 the present Criminal the mattr:r, I.A.Nos.1 record ;rncl ltermit them corlpour-rcl the offenccs ordered and 2 of 2025 to compromise I.A.Nos.1 and 2 have been filed to the matter to of 2O2S are 5 Tod a..r, when the matter is called, both petitioner and rcspondent No.2 are present in the Court 6. Learned ccunsel lbr petltioner placed on record mamiage certificate issued b1, tl-re Sub Registrar. The contents of rnarriage certilicate are as follorr,s a j-ur?,:" ) .0 u R^ B H A D RA RA o ,, ",ll nrt I.'.l, rt,-;,, and A\Nn \4 JyoTHI u,.,,,'tu ,tIraHVI TEJ{ dir .r n,u,. ,0. JIJ1;;".::,1":; ,T:;tl; ,lf ."ii:, :,,,,'J[nol;x;.; :H ;::t """'j::fi llll:*d r,h.rr a , e1sp6,,u oi r,r.ing"l;; ;:j;, ,l:::iT:,1 [,cruccr] rtrem ald ,h.i,;:;' ;",. uee|. I1\.rng together as hu s al:d ruif" sin"e r_ne r rmc of rhcir marrias" ;bu,'9 A c r . r I r e =, i.r -, .. il*. l,*, "',ir*J.t rtiT"l,:1lJ:,:: I t I I I i I -) JAK, J CRt.P 152(r0 202'1 2025 been registered under this Act' having effec[ as from 29 daY of lvlaY, 2021 " 7 . This Court queried complainant i'e'' respondent No 2 with regard to the marriage certificate and urhether both of them are living under the same roof as a married couple' respondent No.2 stated that she is rvorking in a pnvate firm at Kukatpally and staying along with petitioner out of her orvn willingness rvithout an)' coercion under one roof' B. Considered the er-rtirc lactual matnx of the casc' petitioner and respondent No'2 are present in the Court' they stated that they are living together and requested to close the matter' This Court is of the opinion that the matter be placed before [he 'lelangana High Court Legal ServicesCommitteeforidentificationofpartiesandlilingof report. Petitioner and respondent No 2' and their counsels appeared beiore Secretary, Telangar-ra High CourL Legal Services Committee r'i'ith identity cards on 04'O7 '2025 ' g. The Secretary, Telangana Hlgh Court Legai Services Committee submitted a report, datecl 04 07'2025' q'hich is as follows 1 .IAK. J crt I_P I5260 2024 i .- r'$1"r''] \ -- ,', o,;il,i;";:li]1"'Tll..':.r-,,rpd ,hi,, s i r,,T,r, v Hamsa o'"1. t.r"l,'ltjrc, utr bcl; rlf "l sri Karrkar. Ashr'ini i.ro illl: n(-'i,io,,er';rn,l i\ts. ,t[**n5*j-,:[fl*.l, .-..,. .l.n.t: u.,'rficrl rlrc parricrrlars oI lnr1rj61,.,. neekolu prudvi Tcra ,uf;fn1-ry fu$q#ri:,ii ,nncroscd rr.r"rr,'i,' '.ll,"lr l''t,''"",.t, ,,,ur)\, r rrr- l)c ' opios ',1 /rl( nrrr\ I ar{ls ol rn,. ,".p., iir:"'.or i3 ili"#,{h',ili|:; [,r,;, :: ri:i"ij ir;: I 0 It is submitted b1. learned counsel for petrtioner that petitioner and respondent No.2 are living together and both life. This Court on the last occaslon interacted with petitioner and respor_rdent No.2 and both informed this Court ti-rat th e_r, ar-e living under on('r-ooI h i-rppil.v having gor married :rnd u.isl-r to liyc hal;piiy. leading a I-rappy married t1 It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Bharthi Devi and Another v. State of Telangana and Anotherr ai lraragraph Nos.33 and 34 helcl as fbllora.s: ' r:02+1 to scc :8+ , 5 J AI(. J CRLP I5260 2024 "r '33. lt could thus be seen that the lcarned three this Cor'rrt in Gian Sinoh lltlttt ,;;;'s.".h Qirrah v State ol Punlab' (20 I 2) lO SCe 3O 3^ : linitr + scc {ci;) 1 188 : {2o13) I scc {('rr.) ruu ',3loril );c; ti&s, eBBl hcld lhar B S Joshi la S 'i;r:;,','."i"i-"t 'Harsono' (20u3) 4 S('c o75 ""c lcrii s+si , 'ryikhil Merchant l!vi!)-tit ,oi,i bnl, (2008) 9 scc 677 : (2008) 3 sc(l i.*n"i" i6.ii tiJf , a,,ct Mctnoj shorma lManoj st!"1.*?^u Jr"l", i'zo.ei to SCC 1 : (2010) a scc (cri) lasl were correctlY decided' 34. ll has been hclci lhat the re arc ccrL:rin ;;rch ouerro'heluringlS ancl predornt.attLll ;il";. flavour havrng arise n c-ru[ ol crvil' i.".'"]tlr lo'nmercial' llnan'-ial' partncrship^or ;;r;;ii;, :;;h lri<. transactions or [he ollences arising out particularlv relating to clowry' erc ;i;.,;i;;;;, ;i ;i^.ii;';isiute, *'1'"rc the .vrong is basicallv ,. ,n.li.t'i- and thc olfencler and the viclim have =.air.a "ri Jrsputes betv"een lhcm amicably' the *'*n' . "".i "r",1'1i:.1 f l[i;i ;?,.:::J ; :i? :i,: criminal Proceedtngs, e been made comPoundable " Dealing with the por'ver under Section '182 Cr'P'C'' 12, the Hon'ble Apex CourL at paragraph No 40 held as [o1lor'r's "4O. Subsequently, a trvo-Judge Bench of this ;;;, ;; *; na"'"sinsn lNanndii'r Sinsh v state-of Tiiioa. Orro) b SCC 4oo : (2u14) 3 scc (cri) 54 I tr" r'arlicr ptt''ttoutt*mcrtls o[ iiii..":fi;ol""g lf.i"i.".il."[led"oul lhc position thus : (SCC pp' 4a2-84, Para 291 "" "29. ln vieu oI thc ulblcsaid discussion' up 'rnd [a1' dor'vn thc follolving *t ;;".Gi"" bv which'the High Court u'ould t. gl,ia.a in giving adequatc treatmcnl to Lhe settlemcnt bclv''cn the prrties rnd excrcisinq irs power urrdcr Section 482 ol the Codi s'hili{ctelrring lhc seltlcment ,ra qrr"tri,-,g the procecdings or refusing \ ,, f,;i- \ :: '1 :- ;.:!-'- 6 JAK, J ( Rt_P 15260 1024 - Lo accept the se[le ,,n,i u, ,- i,; ;;.', ,ii,:il,i;'.:j:;;,llJ] "

29. i. pou.er cc unclcr Sec[ron '182 ol the code rronr rrre r.r,i"il-,,,iir';^hc disringLrished ':'l"tt:ti rrcs rrr rhc LLrUrr ro ( urnr)oun(l tire ofL,n, r h, corr,.",i.";::i;:,'il::i;; ;;;; ;.iy : '.,:ll: f",J., rrre ,igh c.u., nn.';;i]:;l; I O\\ el to quash rlre i,\c. irr ir,u". "r"ll'ii,i,'.,f':::o,l:i c tntpoundable. ufie66 r6e p".r il, hru"J srttled thc ma er ii.,,,, *,. hi'J';;J,,]'::";:,,o:n:ll:],:": ii,j r fl l]ri\ artd with (.rutron. _-o. -,. Whcrr tJte partir... lr;rv<.ri.;r,.ilcrl n.nt,and ..,1t r1,., l,,,r.l= ,,.,',i,l,l f,,,. ,."u1" :ll r [L] ash rng thc cr_ir Iil, !. 11,,. g-riai',g' ;:ii: ,Xlr:il,nrJ. \\', , u Jd be ,u "..U.i, (rj,.nds o I just ir_e. or {i4 ir, prevent abus,. of Iire process trf any court. . .t ,n,," - y.J. bUCh a L)( )a) ) cxcrcising thc.por,r cr thc Higlr , \_')rtr[ 1s Lo lorm an o rr,, ,, ror.esa,d i;; *j":il:::tr on .irtrcr ur cx,.,r ised ln-',Ioi Po\\'rr rs r)ul i,) l)c irrr,,ly1 fr"i,ror"'"ri,f P.roseculiotts rr Iriclt ,n e, tal, a.p*i,y ;;:rr.;:'": i,;:t";:n.:: r,rpr . 616c6j1y etc. Such ulr"n,i"" ;;;;; prlvate in nature ana r,aue ...,""". .;;" im.pircl on socion.. Similarly, ,"; nll,',r'r.es allegod to havc be"n- cu;mir;;d u,rdr_r special statute like the ot Corr-uption Act or the ";;;;;il; cornrn itted by public "ff";.;; *urkjng i,, irrlt Iroj'i,,r'l}'i'.", ,:nl: qrraslrcd . merely on rhe basis of :ir1fr:It"" between rhe victim u,.,a ,r,f -l . ',,., ;.' .' ../,, 1 IAK. J cRt.P 15260 202',1

29.4. On the other hand' thosc criminai cases having overwhelmingly and ;.Uffi i.,"tv lwit'nu"'t" :3[';:ii.iy, those arising ou ,rr""ratt.tt oi arising out o[ matrimolrial relarionship or [amily disputes snouru u\I o"r.f'r.J *ntn t he pa rt ics have resulr'' d their cntirc dispute s among themselve's " Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No'41

13. held as follows: "41. It could Lhus bc seen that. this, Court criLnirra'[ cases reiterates the posiLion that the having uu"'*n"t'i.'ii; ;1d p'"1:Il.i:"tlv civil character, putt'<:tti^?iy those arisiLrg out oI commerciai tt''"'J^l'i'o"" or ,'ising :" matrimonial ,eiation"hip or lami ty disputes should t" q"u'r'tj i'rtnir-'t.p"ttit: l:);' rr:solved their rntire disPutcs emong Inemscrv( 5' - '

74. In view of the rnteraction \ /ith both parlies and their statements before thrs Court' tlris Court is ol the opinion that it would be futile to continue the proceedings on the file ol XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court This Court does not see any reason not to close the proceedings' The complainant herself has stated in the Court that she is married to p&itioner, living rvith him happily under one roof and wish to live haPPiiY' 15 In view of the clecision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Ln K. Bharthi Devi,s case (supra) , this Court i s inclined to 8 \-'.=-\_ \ :' Lr 'l.i1t,,, grant re liel as crrnrinal PraYed for. In vieu, of the Petition starrds allog,ed and CO agarnst peritioner in p.R.C.No.4 Additronal Metropolitan Magistrate 6 of 2O2O on r ll sj trt (.t , are liable to be Court, Ranga Redcjr. quashed and herebv quashed ,IAK. I cRLP t5260 102.1 mpromise, this e proceedings the file of XiV Mrsceilaneous slancj closr,.d. applications pending, if anY, shall SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER -I 1 The XIV Additional Metroooli Kukatpally tan Magistrate Court, Ranga Reddy District at

2. The Station House Officer, Jagadgirigutta p.S,, tr/edchal District. 3. One CC to SRt. M HAMSA RAJ Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to Ms. K ASHWtNt TARA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 5 TworCCs to pUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana 6. Two CD Copies (Enclosed a Copy of Joint Memo Compromise) IVIKN/ABK o w\ ' -,';'r.,i." HIGH COURT DATED:08 t\tt2O2S 1 IlE S o R e 10 ruE I 't D t il t\r.11-l COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos.1 AND 2 OF 2O2S IN/AND CRLP.No.15260 ot 2OZ4 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION .t, t I HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT H\'DERABAD LA. No. oF 2025 tN Crl.P.NO. 15260 OF 2024 BETWEEN: Scekolu Prudvi Teja, S/o. Raj endra Prasad, age: 34 years, Occ: Prt EmPloYee, R/o. D.No.4-32-ll09l2/78A. & 79A, Hasini Rcddy Nilayam, Alwyn Colony, Near Jeevan Jyothi School, Kukatpally, llyderabad-500072 ...Petitioner AND I 2 The State ol Telangana, reP.bY its Public Prosecutor, High Cour.t of T.S. Mrs. A. Jyothi, W/o. Seekoiu Prudvi Teja, .aged 2$ ycars, Occ: Pvt EmPloYee, R/o. D.No.4-3 2-l 109 l2l7 8 A &. 7 9 A, Hasini Reddy Nilayam, Alwyn Colony, Near Jeevan Jyothi School, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-5 00072 ...Respondents/Defacto Complainant I I : i I I I i l I I I ! I ) i I i . I E't :i ,\t JOINT MEMO FILED BY BOTH PARTIES It is submitted that the petitioner/Accused and the 2nd Respondcnt/Defacto compiainant got married on 29.05 .2021 at Jaggampet in the presence of tamily and fricnds. Since the date of rnarriage the petitioner and the rcspondent No.2 are iiving together happily till date in Flyderabad and the respondent No.2 is not interested to pursue the complaint lodged by her against the petitioner and others and have comprornised the matter in terms of comprornise petition and the 2.d respondentDefacto complainant has no objection for quashing the proceedings in pRC. No. 46 of 2020, on rhe file of the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cour.t, Ra,ga Reddy District: At: Kukatpally, for alleged oflence under Secrion 417, 42C, 376, 506,i09 IpC Hence, it is prayed that this Hon,ble court may be pleased to record the compromise in terms of the compromise petition entered into by and betrveen the parliers hercin, in the interest ofjustice and pass such further or other ordcr or orders that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel '[fl#*, itioner/Accused c"lf,!#4r,"niJ w,kk,, /DefactoComltlainant S.l^n 1^ 1'!' Petitioner/Accused *".$,,TH,#/Deracto Complainant Hyderabad Di tillr