Baikadi Laxman Vs The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in SC/ST SC No. 100 of 2021 before the Special Court for Trial of Offences under SCiST (POA) Amendment Act, 20'15cum-lll Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Sangareddy for the offences U/s 3 (i) (r) (s) of SC and ST POA Act, against the petitioner.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further^proceedings in SC/ ST SC No, 10O of 2021 before the Special Court for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 201S-cum-lll Addl. District & Sessions Judge, at Sanga reddy for the offences U/s 3 (i) (r) (s) of SC & ST POA Act, against the petitioner.

F7

/

l.A. NO: 2OF 2025

Between:

Dandu Kranthi Kumar, S/o Sangameshwar,^{Aged 3Sr years, Occ-Govt} Employee R/o Shankarampet^(A), Medak^District

¶25

...PETITIONER/COMPLAINT

¶26

AND

¶27

The State of Telangana,^{rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the state} of Telangana Hyderabad

¶28

Balkadi Laxman S/o^{Padmaiah,Age- 62 Years,Occ- Retd Employee R/o} H.No.5-B-12l5/E1, Shanti Nagar, Sangareddy^{Town and Mandal, Medak} District.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶30

Petition under Section 359(6) of BNSS^praying that^{irr the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of CriminalPetition,.he High Courtmay} be pleased to^permit the^petitioner to compound^{the offences U/s 3 (i) (r) (s) of} SC & SI (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment^{Act 2015 in CrimeNo. 159/202'l} dated 10.06.202 1 registered by^{Police, Medak in SC/ ST SC No. 100 o( 2021} pending before the Special Court for Trial of Offences^u rder SC/ST^(POA) Amendment Act, 201S-cum-lll ADDL. District & Sessions^{Jud-c;eat Sangareddy.}

¶31

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025

¶32

Petition under Section 359(2) of BNSS^{praying that ir the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay} be pleased to record the terms of compromise^{and Quashthe proceedingsin} SC/ST SC No. 100 of 2021 before the Special^{Court for Trialof Offencesunder} SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 201S-cum-lll^{ADDL. District & Sessions Judge at} Sangareddy against the 2nd^respondent.

¶33

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri C. Sharan} Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public^{Prosecutcron behalfof the} Respondent No. 1 and of Sri N. Manohar, Advocate^for the^{Respondent No. 2.}

¶34

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶36

t.A. Nos.2 and 3 OF 2025 in/and CR!MINAL PETITION No.8849^{OF 2025}

¶37

COMMON ORDER

¶38

This Criminal Petition is^{filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya} Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,^{2023 (tor short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking} quashment of the^{proceedingsagainst the petitioner/accused in} SC/ST S.C.No.100 of²⁰²¹ ,^{on the file of learnedSpecial Court for Trial} of Offences under^{SC/ST (POA)Amendment Act, 201S-cum-lll Additional} District and Sessions Judge,^{Medak at Sangareddy.}

¶39

The petitioner is arrayed as^{accusedin the Cr.No'159ot 2O21} registered for the offences^{punishable under Sections3(tX|(s) of SC &} ST (POA)Amendment Act,^2015.

¶40

Heard Mr.C.Sharan^{Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,} Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla,^{learned AdditionalPublicProsecutor,} representing the respondent^{No.1-Stateand Mr.N.Manohar,learned} counsel for the respondent^{No.2/de-facfo complainant.}

¶41

Pending this petition, the^{parties haveentered into the compromise} and, accordingly, respondent^{No.2lde-facto complainantfiled} l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 wilh the^prayer to^{permitthem to entei-iiio}

¶42

Arr&/

¶43

2

¶44

lA.Not.2 and ) 012025 in/ and C:rlP.No. 8819 0J2025

¶45

compromise and by recording the settlement to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in SC/ST S.C.No.100 ol 2021 .

¶46

This Court vide otder daled 16.07.2025 referre,l the parties to the High Court Legal Services Committee for identification and to verify the voluntariness in arriving the settlement. The Secretanl, High Court Legal Services Committee, has submitted report dated 30.07.2025 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 coerr;ion entered into settlemenUcom promise.

¶47

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record.

¶48

Having considered the allegations, the nature of charged offences

¶49

and taking into account the amicable settlement between the parties, in the light of the dictums in Gian Singh v. State of punjab and anotherl and Anil Mishra y. Sfa(e of l!.p.2; State of Madhya pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others3, this Court is of the considered view that

¶50

nt of the impugned proceedings in view of the settlement by

¶51

| 2012 (1O) SCC 303

¶52

2 zozq INSC rag

¶53

3 zots 1s; scc oaa

\ s.

N-rR,/

3

I-4.Nol2 and ) oJ 2025 in/ a Cr^>.N0. EE49 of 2025

¶58

I

¶59

exercising^jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.1528 of BNSS, 2023, would be in the interest of^justice.

¶60

Accordingly, l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed. Consequently, all the proceedings in SC/ST S.C.No.100 of 2021 , on the file of learned Special Court for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 201S-cum-lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/accused

¶61

ln the above terms, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶62

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶63

SD/. T. SRINIVASA REDDY A SISTANT REGISTRAR

\

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The S-pecial Court for Trial of Offences -Sessbns'.1under s/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 20 1S-cum-lll Additional Oistrict a udge at Sangareddy

¶69

2 The ^Spe-ciar court for Triar of offences under SCs/srs (poA) Amendment Act, 201S-cum-V Additionat District C Sii.ion. lrog";i U;g;;j;; "' " "

¶70

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Medak.

¶71

The Station House Officer, Medak police Station, Medak Town

¶72

One CC to Sri C. Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶73

One CC to Sri N. Manohar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

Two CD Copies

¶75

(Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise)

Vt{/gh Nr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0610812025

ORDER I.A. NO: 2 AND 3 OF 2025 IN/AND CRLP.No.8849 ot 2025

¶80

,...-a 1 r1l .S,..q iir
f
l
29 AUE zffi
t
., ,/
'.' I-' ia. ,/
-:.-- _- , -

¶81

DISPOSING OF THE GRIMINAL PETITION

¶82

I

¶83

a

¶84

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶85

AT: HYDERABAD

¶86

Crl. Petn.No. of 2025

¶87

Between:

¶88

Baikadi^g+*h'r La-.^',' o-n S/o padmaiah, Age: 62 Years, Occ: Retd Employee R/o H.No.5-8- 12lStE1, Shanti Nagar, Sangareddy Town & t/andal, l\4edak District.

¶89

Petitioner

¶90

And

¶91

The State of Telangana rep. by its Public^prosecutor High Court for the state of Telangana

¶92

Dandu Kranthi Kumar S/o Sangameshwar, Aged 39 years, Occ: Govt Employee R/o Shankarampet (A), tr/edak District

¶93

.Respondent

¶94

JOINT ME MO FI LED BY THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT

¶95

The petitioner and 2nd respondent respectfuily submit that the above matter is settled out of the court and that this Hon'bre court may be preased to Quash the Proceedings sc/sr SC No.'r00/202i dt..r0.06.2021 pending before the Hon'bre speciar court for Triar of offences, under sc/sr (poA) Amendment Act, 2015-cum-ilr ADDL District & Sessions Judge at Sangareddy

¶96

I

¶97

-2-

¶98

It is also agreed between the parties that the'e are no clalms or allegations against each other in future in respect of above crime.

¶99

Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in SC/ST SC No.'1 00/2021 dt. 10.06.202'1 pending before the Hon'ble Special Court for Trial of O{fences under SC/S-[ (POA) Amendment Act, 201S-cum-lll ADDL District & Sessions Judge at Sangareddy and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Cour: may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

PETITI

4)2
RESPONDENT

\y

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

¶104

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

Baikadi Laxman v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baikadi Laxman v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Singanaboina Uma Rani Vs The State of Telangana

Mudavath Pravinder Vs The State of Telangana

Manu Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Bandru Shiva Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Arrugatti Shiva Vs The State of Telangana

A.Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana