CRLP/3195/2025 of K. Niranjan Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana on 7 September 2026

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.514 of 2024 registered by P.S., KPHB colony, on the file of learned IV AJCJ-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

2. Heard Mr.G.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner- accused, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 – State and Sri N.Naveen Kumar, Learned counsel for respondent No.2 – defacto complainant.

3. Respondent No.2-complainant lodged a report before P.S., KPHB colony on 26.05.2024 stating that petitioner-accused took her to srisailam on 26.06.2023 on the premise of marrying her and thereafter he had sexual intercourse with her in the room. Petitioner- accused has also committed sexual intercourse on 05.07.2023 in srilanka on the false promise of marriage. Marriage could not be performed as muhurtham was not good on 26.06.2023 and prayed to take action.

4. Basing on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 420 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner- accused.

5. It is stated in the quash petition that respondent No.2- complainant filed the complaint which is abuse of process of Court, untenable under law and motivated with unlawful gains and objects and prayed to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.514 of 2024 registered by P.S., KPHB colony, pending on the file of IV AJCJ-cum- XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

6. Petitioner-accused has obtained stay of all further proceedings in the above said FIR in I.A.No.2 of 2025 vide order dated 05.03.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner – accused submits that the parties have arrived at a compromise and FIR may be quashed, in support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of

(i) Kapil Gupta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another1 and (ii) Madhukar and Others vs. State of Maharastra and another2.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State has filed IA to vacate the stay in I.A.No.2 of 2025 dated 05.03.2025 and dismiss the criminal petition, he submits that the grounds raised in the vacate stay petition may be read as counter in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 and that compromise cannot be permitted as the offences are against the society and relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit Singh3, and

(ii) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others4.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner – accused and respondent No.2 – complainant have voluntarily compromised the matter with free will and proceedings be quashed, in support of his contention has relied on the decisions in 1 (2022) 15 SCC 44 2 2025 SCC OnLine 1415 3 (2013) 10 SCC 686 4 (2019) 5 SCC 688

the cases of i) Saju P.R Vs. State of Kerala and Others5, (ii) Gokada Suresh vs. State of Andhra Pradesh6 and (iii) Ch.Nagarjuna Reddy and another vs. State of Telangana, through SHO, Kanchanbagh P.S. Hyderabad and another7.

10. During the pendency of criminal petition, respondent No.2- complainant filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 seeking leave of the Court to compound the offence in view of the compromise arrived between the parties and also filed I.A.No.4 of 2025 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.514 of 2024.

11. This Court, vide order dated 09.04.2026, directed the petitioner-accused and respondent No.2-complainant to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, for their identification.

12. In pursuance of the above said directions, petitioner-accused and respondent No.2-complainant made their appearance before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, who identified the parties with that of their respective counsels and sent a report dated 23.04.2026. It is stated in the report that, “When asked, both the parties stated that they have willfully and without any coercion entered into compromise”.

5 2019 SCC Online SC 2274 6 2023 SCC Online AP 57 7 I.A.NOs.2 and 3 of 2024 In/And Crl.P.NO.10526 of 2023, of the High Court for the State of Telangana dated 21.11.2024.

13.1 In Kapil Gupta1 the Supreme Court observed at paragraph Nos.15 and 16, which reads as under: “15. In both the cases, though the charge-sheets have been filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted that since Respondent 2 herself is not supporting the prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts.

16. In that view of the matter, we find that though in a heinous or serious crime like rape, the Court should not normally exercise the powers of quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in order to give succour to Respondent 2 so that she is saved from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one as a victim and one as an accused, we find that this is a fit case wherein the extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings.”

13.2 In Madhukar2 the Supreme Court observed at paragraph No.7, which reads as under: “7.In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful-purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.”

14.1 In Jagjit Singh3, the Supreme Court observed that the offences when committed in relation with banking activities including offences under Sections 420/471 of IPC have a harmful effect on the public and threaten the well-being of the society, these offences fall under the category of offences involving moral turpitude committed by public servants while working in that capacity. 14.2 In Laxmi Narayan4, the Supreme Court has set aside the order passed by the High Court, wherein the accused therein was allegedly charged for the offences under Section 307 and 34 of IPC. 14.3 The decisions cited by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor are not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court are distinguishable.

15.1. In Saju P.R5 the Supreme Court has modified the sentence period awarded by the High Court to one already undergone by them. The said decision is not applicable. 15.2 In Gokada Suresh6 High Court of Andhra Pradesh has quashed the proceedings in Crime No.239 of 2022 of Gajuwaka P.S. Visakhapatnam for the offences under Section 376 of IPC as the complainant compromised the matter. 15.3 In Ch.Nagarjun Reddy7 this Court has permitted the parties to compromise the case for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.

16. A joint compromise memo is enclosed with I.A.No.4 of 2025, wherein the respondent No.2-complainant stated that with a view to put quietus to the disputes among them, they have mutually agreed to resolve the disputes.

17. In Kapil Gupta1, the Supreme Court observed that if the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal Court.

18. Since the respondent No.2-complainant came forward voluntarily to compromise the matter, to put a quietus to the litigation, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings.

19. In the result, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 and Criminal Petition are allowed. Proceedings in FIR.No.514 of 2024 registered by P.S., KPHB colony, pending on the file of learned IV AJCJ-cum- XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, against the petitioner-accused is hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 07.09.2026 Pss/Dua

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.3195 of 2025

DATE: 07.09.2026 Pss/Dua