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 quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in S.C.No. 136 of 2025 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA)Act, 1989-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. l.A. NO: 2 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 against the Petitioner/accused in S.C.wo. 136 of 2025 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Un"der SCs/STs (POA)Act, 1989-cum-VIl Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, pending dlsposal of the main Criminal Petition. l.A. NO: 3 oF 202s Between : Narala Swetha, D/o Pochaiah, Wo B. Vijay Singh, Aged about 33yrs, Occ. WPC Constable, Silroornagar P.S, Rlo Plot No.16lNP, Self Finance Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Rangareddy District. ...Petitionerlllespondent No.2/De-facto complainant in l.A No.3 and 4 ol2O25 AND

1. Bondili Vijay Singh, S/o Late Anand Singh, Age-d about-93yIs, 9""- Governmr:ht- Empl-oyee, R/o Flat No.101, Plot No.30 and 31, Pranithas Residencrr, Dwarakipuri Colony, Dammaiguda, Keesara Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. ...RespondenUPetitioner/Accused l.A No.3 and 4 of 2025

2. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telanganrl at Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Respondents l.A No.3 and 4 of 2025 Petition under Section 359(6) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to perntit the petitioner/respondent No.2 to compound the offences with the respondent/petitioneri Accused by allowing the Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner against S.C.No.136 of 2025 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA)Act, 1989-cum-Vll Additional District ancj Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. l.A. NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 359(2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to rec,)rd compromise the case with the Petitioner/accused and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused may be quashed in S.C.No.136 of 2025 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA)Act, 1989-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirrinal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapal:i, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Mr.N.Mahesh Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court mad,e the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 IN AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.16421 of 2O25 Between : Bondili Vrjay Singh AND The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, and another .. . . Petitioner/ Accused ....Respondents COMMON ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.136 of 2O25on the lile of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Mr.Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Mahesh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf gf respondent No.1-State. 1 -l

3. Learned cttunsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, at the instance of the well wishers, relatives and elders, the parties have settled the disputes pending between them and entered into compromise and filed Joint Memo. .Accordingly, the parties have hled I.A.Nos,3 and 4 of 2o2s seeking .,.\ permission to compound the offences and to record the comprorrrise respectively.

4. This court uide order, dated ro.12.2o25, directed the parties i.e., the petitioner and respondent No.2, to appear before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, on lZ.l2.2O2S. In compliance of the said order, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services commitl:ee, has submitted report, dated rs.12.2025, stating that the petitiont:r and respondent No.2 were duly identified with copies of tfreir Aadhar Cards. It is further stated that the parties have willfuily and without any coercion entered into compromise.

5. In view of the said report and also in view of the compromise entered between the petitioner and respondent No.2 as well as the submisr;ions made by the respective parties, t.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2o2S are allo'wed. consequently, the proceedings in S.C. No.136 of 2o2S on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under SCs/sTs (PoA) ,\ct, 1989-cum-VII Additional District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed against the petitior: er . -/ I / -/ a J

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1O,O00/- (Rupees ten thousand on\r) to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and Rs.5,O00/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, by the petitioner, on or before 31.I2.2O25. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO REGIS ,/TRUE COPY/T ON OFFICER To'1. The Metropolitan Sessions Court for Trials of SCs & STs Cases Cum Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B Nagar, R.R District. 2. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Statjon, Ranga Reddy Dist.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad. TOUTI

4. One CC to SRI SANJEEVA REDDY GARLAPATI Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI Mr.N.Mahesh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies & Svs/PR (Along with a copy of Joint Memo) Note : TotalAmount of Rs. 15,000/- ( Rupees Ten thousand only ) has been paid by Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, Counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.12.2025 as Rs.1O,OO0/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committeg, Hyderabad and; Rs.5,0001 (Rupees Five thousand only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad and filed Memo as proof of compliance USR No.1632 of 2026, dated 06-01 -2026. HIGH COIJRT DATED i2211212A25 COMMON ORDER I.A N 3 and 4 of 2025 IN/AND CRLP.No.16421 of 2025 ..,& lHE S I 3 ?g JAN 2026 * -,r '1 i r... :;5:' ALLOWING THE l.A No.3 and 4 of 2025 IN/AND CRLP.No.16421 of 2025 \ )$ a\ 7 lN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGA NA STATE AT H*bERABAD Crl.P.No, of 2025 Between: Narala Swetha D/o Pochaiah, W/o B. VijaY Singh, Aged about 33Yrs' Occ: WPC Constable, Saroornagl' l:S, R/o Plot No.16/NP, Self Finanbe Colony' Vanasthalipu ra m' Ra ngareddy District'... And r"a,,,oner/ RespondenJ T".r{ De-facto comPlainant . ;' r ..' l.' J,,' ,r Bond ili Vijay Singh, /o Late Anand Singh; Aged about 33Yrs, Occ : Government EmPloYee,' R/o Flat No.101, Plot No 30 & 31, Pranithas ResidencY, Dwar,akapuri ColonY, Danr Medch al-Malkajgiri Distri ... Respondent/ Petitioner/Accused ate of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at HYderabad ,,.Respo JOINT MEMO It is submitted that the petitioner/respondent No'2 herein filed the preient joint Memo to compound the offences as againSt the Petitioner/Accused as the matter is settled out of court amicably in view of the fact that the petitioner' :. Forthereasonsstatedabove,itisprayedthatthisHon,ble court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/respondent No'2 I I 1 I i. : 3 - ary1:':il3+^.F.-*J. rr' d 6 8 herein to compound the offence . Petirioner herein ,by.a,owins asainst;;;;0. the crir,n;; fetition fited by the o,"nned in s.c. No, ::,",,X;:: :."eedinss UnJer ..,,,,J?:;::; :::::;l;,:::f" f.rrria, .f cases onal District and' Sessions Judge, Rangareddy Drt, and pass such othe,r order or orders * ,n* n";;:';:::;::T, ._ vvu, r rnii/ oeem fit and proper in the <:ircumstances of the case. Ptacrt: Hyderabad DateC: g llttz".s Counsel for the petition n uoun:jel for the petitionlrZB *r0** e-!L, espondent No.2 _s De-facto_ Com plainant t Fetiti ot)er /Accused t. : I I I ! 4 I I It. i