CRLP/7623/2024 of Sri. E Pawan Kalyan Vs The State of Telangana on 8 January 2026

:ORDER:

This Clriminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.867 ot 2024 pending on the file of the learned XXll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad (for short 'trial Court'), registered fc'r the offences under Sections 493, 406, 323 and 420 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC').

2. Heard Mr. Muddu Vijay, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. M.Mehb,oob Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing fc,r respondent No.1-State. Though the matter was listed under the caption 'for Orders' today, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2-de facfo complainant. Hence, learned Additional public

JS, J Ct .P.No,7623 of 2021 .-- is heard on behalf of respondent No.2 and orders were passed. Perused the record. 3' Learned senior counser appearing for the petitionei submits that the petitioner and the de facto complainant have entered into compromise and filed a copy of joint memo of compromise in F'c'o.P.No.424 ot 2o2s on the fire of the rearned principar Famiry court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein, the de facfo complainant undertook to take necessary steps to withdraw the aforesaid c.c. and the present criminal petition. However, the same were not withdrawn by the de facto complainant.

4. Upon verification of the joint memo of compromise, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not dispute the same.

5. ln this connection, a reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwalt, wherein, it is held that when there is a compromise entered by the parties and when there is a crause with regard to withdrawar of the cases, the parties have to adhere to the same. ln the present case also, the parties have entered into compromise, in which, there is a crause to the effect that the de facto complainant shall withdraw the cases pending against the petitioner herein. lnspite of such clause, the aforesaid c.c. and the I zoosll; scc zel I

JS, J Crl.P.No.7623 of 2021 present crirninal petition are not withdrawn by the de facto complainant, which goes against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.

6. ln view of the above, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of the law, and hence, the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal n is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.86l ot 2024 pending on the file of the learned XXll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sh-all sta,nd closed. SD/- L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUW REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad

2. The Station House Officer, Trimulgherry P.S., Hyderabad

3. One CCto SRl. M MEHBOOBALI Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to SRl. Sri Ram Advocate IOPUC]

5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT)

6. Two CD Copies VSM/PSL

i :t A

II HIGH COURT DATED:08/01 12026 ,o'. e o() 1 ? rrB 2(126 * *

ORDER

CRLP.No.7623 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PET]TION t. "a