Allowed¶28

Ms. Hannaneh Hajiaghababa v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC31 Mar 2026CRLP/7516/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings — S. 528 BNSS 2023 — Cr.No.78 of 2024, Machavaram Police Station, N.T.R. Commissionerate — Court-annexed mediation — amicable settlement/compromise between accused and complainant — Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) paid to Respondent No.2 — no purpose in continuing proceedings — Criminal Petition allowed, proceedings quashed — mutual undertaking not to initiate future civil or criminal proceedings — mediation report part of record — Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, dated 01.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in Cr.No.78 of 2024 on the file of Machavaram Police Station, N.T.R. Commissionerate; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶28

Ms. Hannaneh Hajiaghababa Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010471032024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7516/2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

1.MS. HANNANEH HAJIAGHABABA, D/O MOHSEN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, C/O LANCERS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, DLF PHASE-V, SECTOR-53, GURGAON, HARYANA, INDIA-122 001.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.

¶14

2.M TRINADH KUMAR, S/O VENKATA NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF BLOOMINGDALE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 40-27-16, POLYCLINIC ROAD, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES COLONY, ACHARYA RANGA NAGAR COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶17

1.D NARENDAR NAIK

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶19

1.AISHWARYA NAGULA

¶20

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner in Cr.No.78 of 2024 on the file of Machavaram Police Station, N.T.R. Commissionerate.

¶25

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶26

The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.2 were personally present before this Court. Pursuant to the appointment of a learned Mediator by this Court, the parties were referred to mediation, which was duly conducted in accordance with law. Upon completion of the mediation proceedings, the Mediator submitted a report stating that the dispute between the parties had been amicably resolved through mediation.

¶27

It is borne out from the mediation report that the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have voluntarily entered into a lawful compromise, resolving all issues arising out of the present proceedings. In furtherance of the said settlement, the Petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to Respondent No.2.

¶28

On careful perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties as reflected in the mediation report, this Court is of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served in permitting the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶29

¶30

Consequently, the proceedings in Cr.No.78 of 2024 on the file of Machavaram Police Station, N.T.R. Commissionerate, are hereby quashed. Both parties, who are present before this Court, have unequivocally undertaken that they shall not initiate any civil or criminal proceedings against each other in respect of the subject dispute in future. The mediation report shall form an integral part of the record.

¶31

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶32

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶33

Date: 01.04.2026 VTS

Ms. Hannaneh Hajiaghababa v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Hannaneh Hajiaghababa v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Blue Sea Ventures LLP Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Mineral on Ground Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Doddi Rambabu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mittapalli Siva Kunnar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vinjavarapu Satyanarayana Vs the State of Ap

Gudivada Krishnamma Vs the State of Ap