Allowed

Mohan Lal Purohit @ Mohan Purohit v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jul 2025CRLP/7428/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two linked applications and a criminal petition seeking quashment of proceedings under Section 420 IPC. The court recorded the settlement reached by the parties via the Legal Services Committee and quashed the criminal proceedings in the interest of justice, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents regarding compromise in private offences.

What did the court decide?

All proceedings in C.C.No.10175 of 2022 on the file of the Sixth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad are quashed against the petitioner/accused.

Mohan Lal Purohit @ Mohan Purohit Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t32',t7 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

l.A.Nos.2 AN D 3 0F 2025

¶7

ln/And

¶8

Between:

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:.7428 OF 2 025

¶10

Xglrl_L:l-lyr-"hit,9^Mohan !qrq!i!,^{S/o Mobataram purohit,Aged 35 years,} ucc Busrness, R/o H.No 7-.!.-Q-3p_, -Burqga Chetty Bazar,- np hoad, Secunderabad and Native of D.WING, 3rd Fioor, fhi tto SS, Bifairm Sireii, Grant Road, Mumbai400008.

¶11

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶12

ANO

¶13

'1. The state of reranoara,, R_ep-by its pubric prosecutor, High court buirding, Hyderabad Throug-h^{pS'btoiHrloeiauao -} .^--'

¶14

Z !1! Anuj Kumar Aga-rwal, S/o V.K.Agan,rral, Aged 54 years, Authorized srgnarory Jasper rnfotafh. irt. Llq 4447. Defence cbrony, New Derhi-110024 and native of Rio 101, Siddarth Chambers_1, falu Sarai,'iliJ= ff,r., S"rifi Delhi-110016

¶15

...RespondenUDefacto-Complainant

¶16

Petition under Section 52g of B.N.s.s Act, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or ciiminai petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in cc.No.10.t 7s of 2022 on the file of vl Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate at Nampaily, Hyderabad in the interest of justice.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section E2g of BNSS Act, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of irimina-l petition, the High court may be preased to stay ail further proceedings cc.No.1 olzs of io22 on the file of vl Additional chief Metropolitan MagistrateLt Nampally, Hyderabad j1ct1o1ng personal appearance of the petitioner/Accused-2 penoing diiposar of the Criminal Petition.

I I I

-l-l'

l.A. NO: 20F 202s

BETWEEN:

ii,ft,i5+tf^{',iil4,.I?,y{q^[xw:#p"",i:if,ffi} ft [,,["J5f,?.,,0,0 B:frll1%eo ?:^{*/o1 0 1, siddarthGild;,_1,' ft;i," #;y, HauzKhas, south}

¶24

...Petitioner/Respondent No.2 in lA.Nos .2 & 3 OF zOZs

¶25

AND

¶26

1 . Mohan Lat^purohil g M,qlqn purohit, S/o Mobataram purohit, Aged 35 years, Occ Business n7.o ..n rrro,l l_-Bie,-;,;;i,s; C-fetty Bazarl np hoao, B?,"Xifl::1:1fl,ilgJr5iig^{, *,r.id, ;;'tr"l,..,rIji i.ro 5glHir"i,,si["t,}

¶27

"'Respondenupetitioner/Accused No.2 in rA.Nos.2 & 3 0F 2025

¶28

The State of Telanoara,,^$n_by its public prosecutor, High Court building, Hyderabad ThrougE ps crrj,"H?ei;b;."' '""

¶29

...RespondenURespondent No.1 in IA.Nos .2 & 3 OF z}zs

¶30

Petition under Section .35g(6) of BNSS, Act, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandr. oi^-i ro rl..'as of criminar petition, the High court may be preased 1o permit-ine p.titiJ*rrn""pondent No.2_defacto_ complainant to compound. the offences ,]ni"i"5".tion 504, 506 IpC and 3(1)(x) of cs/STs (poA) with *r.e responuenvp"tiiioi", herein in sc.spL.No.200 of 2022 on the fite of Speciat S;;ri;;;'i;inl"r"' Triat of Cases under SCs/STs(pOA) Acr 1989_Crr_Vta A;;ii;nri"6i"tri.t And Sessions Judoe Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar i, tnu-iri.ru.t o'iir.ti"u.

¶31

l.A. NO 30F 2025

¶32

Petition under Sec1ion.359 (2) BNSS Act, 2023 praying that in the circumstances staled in the Memorand* Jor"riros of criminar petition, the High court may be preased. to record G t.ir. Petitioner herein, who is the comprainrnf "i"ompromise -Responoenrpetitioner,^{enteredinto the} who is accused and to quash the proceedings in cc.No. "na io 175 0r 2022 0n the fire of Vr Additionat Chief MetrooorLll r,4"O.i9i*1" IiN.rp""rrv, Hyderabad against the Petitioner/Accused in the interest of justice.

¶33

This Petition coming_ on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon rrLaring tn:' arguments of sri c.Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and the Sri Jitheialinao Veerama[a, Additionar Public Prosecutor on OenSff. ol tn"-n*p"rO-*t No.1, and Sri B.Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶34

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶35

¶36

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.A.Nos.2 AND 3 0F 2025 ln/And CRIMINAL PETITION N o.7428 0F 2025

¶38

COMMON ORDER:

¶39

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section^'528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Ior short^'BNSS, 2023'), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.10175 of 2022, on the file of the Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶40

The petitioner is the sole accused in the Calendar Case registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of lPC.

¶41

Heard Mr.C.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State and Mr.B.Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2l de-facto complainant.

¶42

Pending this petition, the parties have entered into the compromise and, accordingly, they moved l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 with the prayer to permit them to enter into compromise and by recording the settlement to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.10175 of 2022.

¶43

¶44

¶45

J.'1.N0t.2 anfi- 01 2025 ia/and C,/.P.N0.7428 of 2025

¶46

This Court vide order dated 19.06.2025 referred the parties to the High Court Legal Services Committee for identification and to verify the voluntariness in arriving the setflement. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, has submitted report dated 30.06.2025 stating that the parties were identified by their respective counsel and also on verification of Aadhar Cards/ldentity Cards and the enquiries revealed that the parties have willfully and without coercion entered into settlemenUcompromise.

¶47

6 l have considered the submissions of the rearned counser and perused the materials on record.

¶48

Having considered the aflegations,'the charged offence and taking into account the amicabre setflement between the parties and to restore peace among them, in the light of the dictums in Gian Singh v. Sfafe of Punjab and anotherl and Anil Mishra y. Sfafe of lJ.p.2; Sfate of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others3, this Cou( is of the considered view that quashment of the impugned proceedings in view of the settlement by exercising jurisdiction under section 4BZ cr.p.c.r52g of BNSS, 2023, would be in the interest of justice.

¶49

| 2012 (10) SCC 303

¶50

2 zo2q INSC t89

¶51

r zo19 (s) scc 688

¶52

Nl&/

¶53

¶54

I-,1.N0t.2 an of 2025 in/a Crl.P.Nt.7128^o1 202i

¶55

Accordingly, l.A.Nos.2^{and 3} of 2025^{are allowed.Consequently,} all proceedings in C.C.No.10175 of 2022,^{on the file of the learned Vl} Additional Chief Metropolitan^Magistrate at^{Nampally, Hyderabad,are} hereby quashed against the^{petitioner/accused.}

¶56

ln the above terms, the Criminal Petition^{is disposed of}

¶57

Pending miscellaneous applications,^{if any, shall standclosed.}

¶58

SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

\SY, SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

l The vl Additionar chief Metroporitanchief t\4agistrate at Nampaily Hyderabad 2. The Station House officer, cloer brime i;iG'-Si;ii"", CtD Hvderabad 3. Two CCs to the^pubric prose6utor, High cor.t rorine'stIt""Ji',r""i"i;ll rt Hyderabad [OUT]

¶63

One CC to Sri C.kumar. Advocate tOptJCl i 9n"^{CCto Sri B.Krishni K;,rhk} Ai;;c;id topucl 6. Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCopies

¶64

Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCopies

qu-

NVB/psl

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310712025

t THE S 14
: 16 JUL 2025

c

¶71

COMMON ORDER

¶72

l.A.Nos.2 AND^{3 OF 2025} ln/And CRLP.No.7428 of²⁰²⁵

¶73

DISPOSING^{THE CRLP AND ALLOWING THE} l.A.Nos.2&3OF2025

¶74

#
b T 1)

¶75

ri !i ! ! il i I I

¶76

/<) X. V '/ --r^{.r.^arrr} ^?^r.rvrtED t IN THE^{HrGH couRT FoRTHE srire oFTELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} OF2O25 CRLP No'

¶77

Between:

¶78

Mohan^{Lal Purohit@ MohanPurohit} S/o Mobataram^Purohit,

¶79

Aoed 35 Years,^{Occ:Business,} nio ff .f,fo.Z-f-938,^{Buruga ChettyBazar'} n'P noad,^{Secunderabad and} Native of^{D.WING, 3'd Floor,} Flat No.39,^{BalaramStreet,} .. Petitioner/Accused-2 Grant Road,^{Mumbai-400008'} AND

¶80

The^{State ofTelangana,} Reo.bv its^{PublicProsecutor,} nidn Coutt^{building, HYderabad} Th-rough^{PS CID, HYderabad'}

¶81

2, Sri.Anuj^{Kumar Agarwal} S/o V.K.Agarwal, Aged niinotiteO 54 Years,^{Signatory Jasper Infotechh ' Ltd'} ffi;;;;il;^{Coronv, Nlw Delhi110024 and native of} RYo iot,^{Siddarth Chambers-1,} Kalu Saray,^{Hauz Khas,} E/Defact-complainant i'"iin o"liii-rr0016. "Respondenl

¶82

JOINT co^MPOMSE E o

¶83

It^{is respectfully submitted that the 2od respondentfiled complaint against} Petitioner/Accused-2andu,..t,.,beforethel.trespondentPolice,inter0aliaalleging offence^{underSection420 oflPCandSec' 66-D ofIT Act' 2000 whereinhe alleged} that,thepetitionerhasdefraudedhiscustomersbydeliveringdifferentitemoflower value^{than the actual product ordered by them}

¶84

A,9.'^ <br>Petitioner

2nd Respondent

'!0/

While things stood thus, after^{intervention of the elders and well-wishersof} both petitioner on one hand and^{2odrespondent hereinon out of coutt on 25-11-2024} wherein the 2nd respondent/complainant^{agreedto withdrawthe casein c.c.No.10 175} of 2022 arising out of FIR.No.27l2016^{as he does not wish to pursue this matter any} further. Therefore, in^view of the^{compromise between the parties,no useful purpose} will be served in continuing the^{crimeagainst the Petitioner. Further the offencesare} private in nature and the same are compoundabie^{with the permission of the court so} also punishable for 3^{years and up to 7 yearsonly.}

¶90

3..^. Henceforth, there shall^{not be any claimswhatsoever againstthe petitioner and} the 2nd respondent and that^{they shalinot interferewith their individuallives in any} manner whatsoever in^future.

¶91

[n view of realizing the said mistake,^{which was occurred bonafidelyand under} mistaken circumstance,,^{the 2nd respondentwho is the only victim in the entire case,} has agreed to withdraw the complaint^{in CC.No.10175 of 2022 on the file of VI Addl.} Chief Metropolitan Magistrate^{at Nampally, Hyderabadagainst the petitioner.}

¶92

The 2nd respondent shall not file any^{fresh complaint/s,case/setc., againstthe} petitioner herein in fuhrre concerning the^{same cause of action and so also, the} petitioner shall not fi[e any cases against the^2nd respondent^also.

t"n
il*^
Petitioner

& 2nd Respondent

w /'

rtl l,i I lrl .,1 I ili

I i I I I i I I l

1,1

ilt I il

It is^{theretbreprayed that this Hon,bre courtmay be pleased to Q(lAsH the} oroceedings^{in CC'No'1017 t*tf iO" on the file of VI Addl'} o'io^{Chief pass such Metropolitano'1her} il#;;;,,"",y; Htrf5fi:m;:;:l:: order^{or ordersas this Hor}

¶102

)4rLt"
Petitioner
Counsel for Petitioner

¶103

tu
2nd Responden t
.$
*
Counsel for ResPo ndent No.2

¶104

Hyderabad

¶105

Dated:F06-202s

Mohan Lal Purohit @ Mohan Purohit v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal Purohit @ Mohan Purohit v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inturi Nagaraju Chowdary @ Naga Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Usha Nirmala Vs State of Telangana

Chinthakula Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana

Yeradesi Shankar Venkata Raju, Vs The State of Telangana

Arbindi Kiranmayi @ Ch Kiranmayi Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Aarey Yashwanth Vs The State of Telangana