Disposed

Madugula Yadagiri v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jun 2025CRLP/5837/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC read with the Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of an amicable settlement between the accused and the de facto complainant, verified by the High Court Legal Services Committee as voluntary. Relying on Gian Singh, Anit Mishra and Laxmi Narayan, the Court held that quashing essentially matrimonial and inter-personal disputes upon compromise serves the interest of justice.

What the court decided

AI extract

Madugula Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132'17 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF^JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

l.A.Nos .3 and 4 ot2025

¶7

ln/and

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5837^{OF 2025}

¶9

Between:

¶10

l/aduoula Yadaoiri. S/o.Maduqula^{Parshu Ramulu, Aged 33 years,Occ Pvt} Emplo"yee, Rto.2-2-1, Gudur,^{kalvakurthyMandal, Nagarkurnool, Telangana} lHusbind^{of the de{acto complainant)}

¶11

2 It/laduoula Parshu Ramulu, S/o.^{Balaram,Aged61 years, Occ Ag} riculturist, At". i-Z-l , Gudur, Kalvakurthy^{Mandal,Nagirkurnool,Telangana (} Father-inlaw of the de-facto comPlainant)

¶12

J Madugula Naramma, Wo^{[VladugulaParshuRamullr., nge.d S$ years,Occ'} Aoricufturist. R/o. 2-2-1, Gudur,^{KalvakurthyMandal,Nagarkurnool,} T6langana.^{(Mother-in-law} of^{the de{acto complainant)}

¶13

4 It/laduoula Saleshawaram. S/o.Madugula^{ParshuRamulu,Aged 37 years,} O;;.-Fvt. emptoyee, Rlo.2-2-1 .^{Gud-ur, Kalvakurthy..Mandal,Nagarkurnool,} Telangana. (Brother-in-law^{of the de-facto complainant)}

¶14

5 Shivaleela @ Gundoor Shivaleela,^{W/o-G.Anjaneyulu,} .Aged^{3! Years,Occ} Housewife,-R/o.1-38-343'l/28,^{CBN Nagar,Rasoolpura,Secundeabad'} (Sister-in-law of the de-facto complainant)

¶15

6 Maduoula Anusha, Wo.^{Madugula Saleshawaram,Aged27 years, Occ'} Hou;d*ii" Rto.2-2-1 ,^{Gudur,Ka-lvakurthy Mandal, Nagarkurnool, Telangana} (Co sister of the de{acto complainant)

¶16

7 G.Anianevulu. S/o. Thirupathi,^{Aqed 38 years,Occ. Pvt. Employee,R/o'} 138343it2B, CBN Nagai,^{Rasoolpura, Secundeabad. (Co brother of the de-} facto complainant)

¶17

...Petitioner/Accused No.1 to⁷

¶18

AND

¶19

I The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,HighCourt Buildings,} High Court, Hyderaibad,^{Through W.P.S. South EastZone, Hyderabad}

¶20

...1"t ResPon de nUCom Plai^{na nt}

¶21

2 Maduoula Santhoshi Kumari,^{Wo. MadugulaYadagiri, Aged32 yqars, Occ'} Empdfree, nyo. H.No.^t e-t^{-gsz tct 41 I A, Saibaba Nagar, Near DRDL,} Uppuguda, Hyderabad.

¶22

...2nd RespondenUDe-facto^Complainant

¶23

+.^i*gE .!.. ..4' ./ -{

¶24

Petition unce r Section 528 of BNSS praying that rr thr,: circumstances stated in the Menrc,randum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, th,: Hirlh Court may be pleased to quasl tre proceedings against petitioners/ accl sed Nos. 1 to 7 in C.C.No.280 of 2)2',. on the file the XV Additional Chief Me,ropr,litan Magistrate Hyderabad.

¶25

l.A. NO: 2 OF 20)25

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

l/ladugula [;a nt 1 ]shi .[umg1i, W/o. Ir/adugula Yadagiri. Agec 32 7ears, Occ. Employee tt/,:,.r1 lJo.'18-1-337tct41lA, Saibaba Nag-ar, Ndar DRt'il, Uppuguda, Hyderabad.

¶28

... Petitioner'/2^1d IlespondenUDe-facto Complainant in l.A.Nos 4 and 5 of 2025

¶29

AND

¶30

Madugula^'(rrlagiri, S/o Madugula Parshu Ramulu, r\gec 33 years, Occ. pvt. F1lployee^{Rlo 2-2-1 , Gudur,l(alvakurthy [Mandal,lrii'garkurriool,ielangana.} (HusbanJ rf rr: de-facto complainant)

¶31

Madugula^)arshu Ramulu, S/o. Balaram, Aqed 61 vears. Ccc. Aoriculturist Rlo. 2-2. 1 G L clur, Kalvakurthy.tr/andal, Nagirkurnocil Tr:lant ;ana. ifatf,ei_lnl law of thr: r;e.f acto complainarit)

¶32

Ja Madugula \ar:mma,_W/o. I\4adugula Parshu Ramulu, lrg ed 56 years, Occ. Agriculturist. tl/o. 2-2-1, Gudur, Kalvakurthv Mar,jal, Nagarkurnool, Telangarra (lVcther-in-law of the de-facto complainantT

¶33

4 Madugulra gir eshawaram, S/o.Madugula Parshu RamL lu. \qed 37 vears. Occ Pvl. :::nllroysg. R.lo. 2-2-1 , Gudur. Kalvakurth'r lrrlanda .^{"tlagarku'rnool,} lelangana^(ll other-in-law of the dejacto complainant)

¶34

5 Shivaleela @L Gunqo_or S-hivaleela Wo.G.Anjaneyulu, l,ged 35 years, Occ. Housewit'e F.tol-38-3431128, CBN Nagar, R'asoolpu"ra. Se6una<laUiA. (Sister-in-l;rw of the de-facto complainant)^-

¶35

6 Madugula \r tr;ha, Wo. Madugula Saleshawaram, Apred 27 years, Occ. Housewi{'e. Rl't 2-2-1 , Gudur, Ka-lvakurthy Mandal, Xaga:t<urroot,'i;i;ig;;;. (Co siste'()f ll-e de-facto complainant)

¶36

7 G.Anjane,yt lu. S/o. Thirupathi, Aqed 38 vears. Oc;c F'vt _mployee, R/o. 1-38-3431/;18 OBN Nagai. Rasooipura, Se'cund6abad (Oo b other of the defacto conrplain a nt)

¶37

...Petitioners/A-1 to A -7 in l.A.1,los.4 and S of 2025

¶38

8 The state or rerangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, Hiqr cc urt Buildinos. High Court Hycerabad, Thiou!h W.p.S. South East ,lon"e Hy leraOaO "-'

¶39

... RespondenUl"t Respondent in l.A.l,los.4 and 5 of 2025

¶40

PetitionUndersection52BofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the High courtmay be} pi;;;; to stay all further^{proceedings, i1c-ly!i1s the appearangg} .9i.^th' fetitioners/accused^{nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No .iBO ot ZOZI on the file the xV Additional} bhi"f M"tropolitan^{1vlagistrateHyderabad, pending disposalof the above criminal} petition.

¶41

t.A. NO: 3 OF 2025

¶42

PetitionunderSection35g(6)ofBNSSprayingthatinthec|rcumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the High court may be} pi.as"a to permit the 2nd respondent^{to compound the offences in C.C.No.280of} 2024 on the file the^{XV AdditionalChiefMetropolitan MagistrateHyderabad,} LjistereO U/ Sec.498-A,^{406, 5OO lPC,Sec 3 and 4 DP Act by recordingthe} compromise, in the^{interestsof justice.}

¶43

I.A. NO:4 OF 2Q25

¶44

PetitionunderSection35g(2)ofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the^{Memorandumof Grounds of criminalPetition,the High courtmay be} pieaseO to record the compromise^{by qu-ashing-the proceedingsagainst the} i"1ition"r.lr""used^{nos.1 to 7 in C.C.No .2BO ot 2024 on the file the XV Additional} Chief lr/letropolitan^{Magistrate Hyderabad.}

¶45

ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofMs.Sandhya Rani Racharla representing^{M/s. Disha Law Firm for the Petitionersand sri} Jithender Rao^{Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutoron behalfof Respondent} No.1 and of Ms.^{Rushika Vyas,Advocate for the Respondent No 2'}

¶46

The Court made^{the following:COMMON OROER}

¶47

THIi Fir)NOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TUKAFIAMJt

¶48

l.A.Nos. 3 AND 4 oF 2025 ln/And

¶49

JIRIMINAL^PETIT|ON No. 5837 OF 202ri

¶50

COMMON ORDER

¶51

This rlr:n^iral Petition is filed under Sectioir S2B ,>f Bharatrya Nagarik Sura".sr a Sanhita, 2023 (for shorl^,BNSiS 2023,). seeking quashment.f :he proceedings against the petitioner.s in C C. No. 280 of 2024 on the f i; cf the learned XV Additional Chef i\4etropolitan lVlagistrate. Fly :i5 r.OrO

¶52

The pe rt. ior i rs are arrayed as accused Nos, 1 :o 7 in f re carendar Case registe-ed tt- the offences punishable under Secti,ns 4gB_A, 406, 506 of the lriiar- Penal Code, 1g60, Sections 3 and tr ol the Dowry Prohibiticn Ar;t i yt'1

¶53

Heard i\yir; ,>z ndhya Rani Racharla, iearned couns,ll. r:presenting M/s.Disha L;n I: rrn, appearing for the petitioners. t\rlr Jril-encier Rao Veeramalla, i::: r'r'ec Additionar pubtric prcsecrrror r :presenting respondent t,ic,. l-:tate and lvls.Rushika Vyas. learned counsel for resoondent N':,l/rl;-racfo complainant.

¶54

Pending iir,,; l;etition, the parties have entered irto tite c;mpromise and, accordinr;l,, t t,ly moved l.A.Nos.3 and 4 ol 202t witr th ; prayg lg permit them t. r. ntt:. into compromise and by recordin; th: setflement to

¶55

¶56

I.A-Not I andl of 202i nt/and Lr/.P.N0.56 )Z 01 2025

¶57

¶58

quash the proceedings against the^{petitioners/accusedNos.1to 7 in C.C} No.280 of2A24

¶59

This Court vide otde'i. daled 28.04.2025 referred^{the partiesto the} High Court Legal Services Committee^{for identificationand to verify the} voluntariness in arriving the settlement.^{The Secretary, High CourtLegal} Services Committee, has submitted^{reportdated 0205.2025 stating that} the^parties were identified by their^{respectivecounsel and also on} verification of Aadhar Cards/ldentity^{Cards and the enquiriesrevealed} that the parties have willfully^{and without coercion entered into} settlemenUcompromi se.

¶60

I have considered the submissions of^{the learned counsel and} perused the materials on record

¶61

Having considered the allegations,^{the charged offences, which are} essentially matrimonial and^{inter-personalin nature and takinginto} account the amicable settlement^{between the partiesand to restore} peace among them, in the light of the dictums in^{Gian Singh v. Sfate of} Punjab and anotherl and Anit Mishra^{v- State of lJ.P.2; Sfate of} Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and^{others3,this Court is of the}

¶62

,=--.QQEl-9ered^{view that quashment of the impugned proceedings in viewof}

¶63

'^{2012 (10) scc 303}

¶64

'z^{2024 INSC 189}

¶65

'^{zo19 (s) scc688}

\lx.i

,.,.

' i r; ;'f ,,, )02 i in/et:i (,^.i. .,.:\ 1 i,9 i- af 202t

¶70

the settlement L,y^.:xercising jurisdiction under Sectio.t 4t2 C..p.C.l12g of BNSS, 2023, r'rct lj be in the interest of justice.

¶71

Accorrlirrg r. lA.Nos.3 and 4 of 2O2S are allorryed C,tnsequenfly, ali proceedinc:; iir⁽⁾ C. No. 280 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Additional l\le,r,rttlitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are i-eret>y quashed against the cef ti,) lers/accused Nos.1 to 7.

¶72

I In the ,:l':r,,: terms, the Criminal petition is disp,:secj of

¶73

Pendrrg^rn i,;,:ellaneous appliCations, if any, sha lstend r:losed

¶74

SD/. IVIOHD.ISMAIL DEPUIY REGISTRAR

¶75

\ I \ SEcIIoN oFFICER ,

¶76

//TRUE COPY//

¶77

To,

¶78

The XV Ad lilional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate F/yderabad 2. The statir>n House Officer,WPS Souih East Zone poli,:e S:atio r, Hyderabad

¶79

Two CCs tc; th,: Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat,: of telangana at Hyderabad (C)lJT)

¶80

One CC lo lVlis. Disha Law Firm, Advocate tOpUCl

¶81

One CC 1o [4r; f ushika Vyas, Advocate [OPUC]

¶82

Two CD Cor:ies

¶83

ADK/PSL

¶84

Along with a^(,opy of Joint Memo of Compromise

\qr

i J I 1' I l I I l

HIGH COUR'T

DATED:09 t0612025

COMMOTI^()FIDER

l.A.Nos.3 anci 4 ot 2025 ln/and CRLP.No.58,3it of 2025

¶93

lHE =r,){I
t
7. C 2q Jttt{ ?0;5

! tl,; ; tii
:J:'J;-

¶94

DISPOSINGi C)F THE CRLP AND ALLOWINGi l.A.Nos.3 ancl ,4 of 2025

¶95

qcoPRdl k a{s[e'5

¶96

I I

¶97

1' l' IN THE^{HIGHCOURTOF JUT)ICTIYTS}" HYDERABAD} ,/ -- FOR THE^{STATE OF TEI'ANGANA}

¶98

	./'-) crl'P'No' 5W of2o25
Betwe 1.	en: ^{Madugula Yadagiri'} i7".la""atg"la^{ParshuRamulu'} a!"J^ssYe"ars,^{occ:hrt'Employee'} Rto.2-2'1,^{Gucluf'KalvakurthyMandal'} Nagarkurnool,^Telangana'
2.	Madugula^{ParshuRamulu'} S/o.Balaram l."aitvears'Occ:^{Agriculturist} ^?'"i,li,o"dur, KivakurthyMandal, Nagarkurnool,^Telangana'
q	Mad.usula^Naramma, w/o.iladugula^{ParshuRamutu'} ;J;;G;s, occ:ABriculturist',. Rto.2-2-1,^{Guour'fJvatcurtt'yMandal'} Nagarkurnool,^Telangana'
4.	MadugulaSaleshawaram' i].lrr?a"g"la^{ParshuRamulu'} i!;3tY;*s,^{occ:Brt'Employee'} Rlo.2-2-1,^{cuJur'KalvakurthyMandal'} Nagarkurnool'^Telangana'
5	Shivaleela@^{GundoorShivaleela'} W/o.G.AnjaneYulu, ;fiaavl"t.,^{o""tHousewife'} n7L.^{r-s-8-s+31128, cBItINagar'} 'ril"""rP"*,Secundeabad' '
6	Madusula^Anusha, W/o.Madugula^{Saleshawaram'} i".aiiYeis,^{occ:Housewife'} ^t"*;;li,C;dur,KalvakrrthYMandal Nagarkurnool,^Telangana'
7	G.Anianeyulu,^{S/o' ThiruPathi'} I-Js8;"*t, ott:Frt'^EmPloyee' i7..r-e-8-s+^gt
	AND N$qr.

I n

I l t I

I i l I

1 The Starr of Telangana, Rep. :y 1s public prosecutor, High .lor:rt Buildings, High Court, Hydellb ad. Thror:gh 'W.p.S. South East Zone, Hyderrrb,rd

¶103

.... 1"t Respondent/r)omplainant

¶104

2 Madur,lrl a Santhoshi Kumari, W/o,',1a,lugula yadagiri, Agec .:,2^.,,:ars, Occ: Employee, R/o.H Nc. 1 B-t -332 / c/ 4t ie,' Saibri a I,lagar, Near DRDL, Upprrg :rl a, Hyderabad.

¶105

.... 2'd.Respondent/De-fa<:to c omplainant

¶106

MOU AND J,O[] TT MEMO FILED BYTHE PETITIo.tYERS lAcCUSED I{os.1 .4,t{D 2 AND THE^..!nD 4- NDE NT IDE- FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶107

1 . It is s rrb riitted that the petitioners/ accused rros.1 to 7 herein file,l thr. above quash petition seeking to quash the proceedingsr in (l.C.No.2gO of 2024 on the file the IIon,ble XV Additionai C:ri,:f Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad, registered U/Sec.498-A ,+(t6, 506 tpc, Sec.3&4DpAcr w- terein the petitioners ztr,,: llgured as accused. nos.1 to 7

¶108

It is lrr_:rrLllty submitted that the 2.a Respondent/de_facto complainanl anc, the petitioners/accused nos.1 to .z hz,ve settled the disputes rrrn;c:abiy settle the present dispute in (l.C.No.2gO of 2024 on thr: lle the Hon,ble XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ii1 d,:iabad, registered u/sec.49s_A 4o6, 506 Ipc, Sec.3 & 4 Dp Ar:: before this Hontrle High Courr. lr.s such,.they have hled th,: ,;r.<:s;ent petition seeking this Hon,ble lligh Court to record the com :r.o nise.

¶109

( l\s-

¶110

I! I

¶111

i i I L I I

¶112

i rl I i I i t I I I lr li llI Tt ir il it li

¶113

: '.:l { ,l ,l jI l,l l ii il ri l I

¶114

¶115

That the disputes^{in between the both partiesare being} compromised^{in the Divorce OP No 1216 of 2024 filed by the} petitioner No^{1 againstthe 2id Respondent/De-facto complainant} herein^{pending on the Iile of Ist Additional Family Court Cum-XW} Additional Metropolitan^{SessionsJudge, Hyderabadalso settled'} as Both parties^{agreedto take a divorce by mutual consentand} petitioner No 1^{agreed to pay an amount of Rs 20'00'OO0/-} Rupees Twenty^{Lakhs) towards fulI and final settlementof the} dispute, in^{which Rs 13,00,000/-(RupeesThirteen Lakhs only)} towards^{permanentalimonyand maintenance'and the balance} amount of^{Rs 7,00,000/-( Rupees Seven Lakhsonly) will pay by} way of a Demand^{d'raft in the name of the daughter Madgula} Dhrithi Manogna^{beforethe .lJon'bleCourt on the d'ate of frling of} evidence affidavits^{for obtainingdivorceby mutualconsent' The} petitioner agreed^{to give Permanent custody of the daughter} Mad(,ula Dhrithi^{Manogna,2"d Xespondent/De facto complainant} herein and^{other terms morefully mentioned in the Memorandum} of Understand-ing^{dated' L7'O3'2O25U/Sec'89 of C'P'C before} Nyay3 Seva^{Sad'an,L,egal ServicesAuthority at City Civil Court'} Hyderabad^{are being compromised"That as per the contents} mentioned^{in the said compromisepetition' are true ald correct to} the best of^{their knowledge and belief.Hence,they are filing the} present^{joint Memo ald copies of the demanddrafts '}

¶116

¶117

It is therefore^{prayed that this HonbleCourt may pe pleased} to permit the^{petitioners/accused nos' I to 7 herein to compound} the offences^{with the 2dRespondent/De-factoComplainant} herein by^{recording'compromise and by allowing the Crirninal} petition No.^{of 2Ol25Ii1ed by the petitioners/accused nos'1 to 7} against C.C.No.280^{of 2024 on the file the Hon'ble XV Additional} Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate Hyd'erabad' registered U/ Sec'498-A'} c. 3 & 4^{DP Act, and Pass such oth} er order^or 406, 506^IPC,Se

dNl*-\J12

"dtt

orders as rir; Hon,ble Court may deem fit and prrrper in the "dtt circumstar.c(. s o[the case. .,peti lioner No. \ !:-,-.l.ltnr"'j l)etit ioner No. E($9 I'etit roner No.3

¶122

P--tifi ()ner No.4 n'.. e.,5. )$,leEfi6: Pt:titioner No.5 n Petitioner No.6

¶123

r. Ait\

¶124

Pe.:itio :er No.7

¶125

Hyderabad. ot.lJ -o+-iozs P*'|A'S' P " ' PETITIONERS CoUNSELFoRiHE Fri ,lopD{r. ,r.\t,^" .-\'-'' V 2"d Respondent/ De-facto C rmgrlalnant

¶126

Hyderabad. Dt.lj -04-,o2s COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONT)ENI NO.2

Madugula Yadagiri v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Madugula Yadagiri v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanavath Ramesh Vs State of Telangana

Polu Ajay ( Husband) Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Moinuddin Qureshi Vs The State of Telangana

Mondi Thirumalaiah @ Thirumalesh Vs The State of Telangana

Adilaxmi Chokkarapu Vs The State of Telangana

Piyush Kumar Parimi Vs The State of Telangana