Allowed

Adela Venkatesh v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Aug 2025CRLP/9037/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition to quash proceedings under SC/ST (PoA) Act and IPC, ruling that a valid compromise and settlement between parties justify quashing subject to payment of condonation fees.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition and S.C. S.P. No. 74 of 2024 allowed and quashed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 each to Director, Sainik Welfare and Telangana High Court Advocates Association within two weeks.

Adela Venkatesh Vs State of Telangana — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

1344/1

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, .' -^{THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICETIRUMALADEVI EADA}

¶6

r-A. NOS.2 AND^{3 0F 2025}

¶7

IN/AND

¶8

CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNO: 9037 0F 2025}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Adela Venkatesh,^{S/o Srinivas Rao, Aged q2 y"1i:l-9"" Private Employee'} ii['tirr*pi^{J;u Vittrg" and Mandal'PAkashamDistrict}

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

1 State of^{Telangana'Rep by its Public Prosecutor'HighCourt for the Stateof} Telangana^{at HYderabad'}

¶14

...RESPONDENT^NO.1

¶15

Bondhu^{Prasanna Kumari,D/o VenkatlRamanaiah'Aged 3l years"Occ} ' F""Ii" E.plov"" nlo'il'No or+o sHEr Metro^{FnclaveKishtareddypet'} Ameenpur^{tvlandal, s;;g;'R;iv"Diliiiciutluapt'.laduVillase and Mandal'} Prakasham District.

¶16

...RESPONDENT^{NO.2/DE-FACTOCOMPLAINANT}

¶17

Petition^{under Section} 'ft'f^{359 RfuV 528 OF BNSSpraying th?i in lle} of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition'the} circumstances^{statedin tn"} "to""Aum for the records .and^{quashthe proceedingsin} High Court^{may be pr""""J to} ""U S.C.Spl.No.^{74 of 2024} ""^{tn" i'ft of the Special Judoefor Trial of Cases under} SCs/STs^{(poA) Act, 1989_i;;-iitnoaitionur Districta-nd sessions Judge' sanga} Reddy^{Districtat Sanga ReddY'}

¶18

r.A. NO;2 0F 2025

¶19

Between:

¶20

Bondhu Prasanna Kumari. D/o Venkata Ramanaiah, Aged 3.1 years, Occ. rrrvate Emptoyee, R/o H.No. 6146, BiEf M*"Ii" Er;r!;= Kishtareddvoet A[i:3f,*Hilfll^{.,nn,neooy oistriEiiji,i],"p'nliJvilase and n,rjhoar,}

¶21

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2/ DE-FAcTo coMpLAtNANr in r.A.No. i & i';i;);

¶22

AND

¶23

Adela Venkatesh, S/o Srrnivas Rao, Aged 32 years, Occ. private Emproyee. R/o Uravaphadu viliJg" r,io"rurino,r prakasham District

¶24

,xsl 313.##,?.1,t E,J'JilE!

¶25

State of reranoa,na,, Rep. by its pubric prosecutor. Hiqh court for the state of Telangana it Uyaeranaol

¶26

...RESPONDENT NO.2/RESPONDENT NO.1 in i.A.No.2&3ol 202i

¶27

Petition under Section- 35s(6) oF BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Gr_ounds "r criri.5iiltition, the High court mav be pleased to permjt the petitioner/D;fJ"-.;;;;;firnt to unt.r into the .orprori." to compound rhe offence against the RL"p";Gi N; 1/A";;r;i;r' i"i".oiii"l'ro of 2024 on the fire of Soeciar .luoge roiiliar ;;';;;r '1989-Cum-ilt Additjonat District arid S"."ionririiJ)"rnn" under Reddy District, SCs/srs (poA) for Act,the qzo, sta 6c-;#""JrH; 3(2)(v) or scs/Srs (poA) i[T;r",:l?tfiJ,i;.

¶28

t.A. NO: 30F 2025

¶29

Petition under section 359(2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum ot Grounos "rcr^"i#r Eltition. the High court mav be preased to compound the offen.ce ; s c. spi. rv"-'7'4'o1 20240n the fire of speciar Judge for Triar of cases under scsrsis ipon) Act. .r 989-cum-, Additionar District and sessions 'tu.oe sanoa n-"aov oii,ill f'or the offence under sections 420.376 rpc and sectiois atzltVl oisdrEil'ii;cinl Amendment Act, 2015 in view of the compromise between ine parties.

¶30

These^petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon frurring rt'," rrgrr"nr. of Sri pApAlAH PEDDAKULA, Advocate for the petitioner in thJ main cRLp and for Respondent No 1 in r'A No 2 &3 0f 2025 and the pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No. 1 in the main CRLp and fo.. ResponOent no 2 in LA. No.2 &3 of

¶31

2 in the^matn 2025 and^{of lr/ls. V SHIVANI' Advocate for the Respondent No} for Petitioner^{in l A' No'2 &3 of 2025'} Cnfp "na

¶32

The Court^{made the following: COMMON ORDER}

¶33

-.-,

¶34

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA l.A.Nos.2 and 3 ot 2025 in/and CRIMINAL PETITION No.9037 ot 2025

¶35

COMMON ORDER:

¶36

1 ' This criminar^petition is fired by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in s.c.spr.No.74 of 2024, on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -cum- il Additionar District & Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 326 lpC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedured castes and schedured rribes (prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 20.1 5.

¶37

lt is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as the respondent No.2/de facto complainant that during pendency of the present Criminal petition, the parties have compromised the matter and accordingly, l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 have been filed to record compromise between them and to compound the offences

¶38

3 The learned Additional public prosecutor has opposed the compromise petitions

¶39

¶40

EM, J Ctt P 90t7²⁰²⁵

¶41

4,Perusedtheaffidavitsfiledbythedefactocomplainantin l.A.Nos.2 & 3^{of 2025 whichdisclose that she has willingly} consented^{for compromise.Sincethe parties were willing to enter} into compromise,^{they were given a chance to settle the matter by} appearing^{along withtheir respective counsel before the High Court} Legal Services^{Committee for the State of Telangana videorders} dated 18.07.2025^{passedby this Court. The Secretary, HighCourt} Legal Services^{Committeeshall identifythe parties and submit a} report to^thateffect.

¶42

Pursuant^{to the above said direction issuedby this Court'the} parties along^{with their respective counselhave appeared before the} High Court^{LegalServices Committee for the State of Telanganaand} the Secretary^{of the abovesaid Authority identified the parties and} submitted a^{report dated30'072025stating that the partieswere} identified^{and theyhave willfully, without any coercion' entered into} compromlse.

¶43

ln view of^{the above, l'A'Nos 2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed'} Consequently,^{the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings} in S.C.Spl.No^{.14 of 2024'onthe file of the learned Special Judge for} Trial of cases^{underSCs/STs (Preventionof Atrocities)Act,1989-}

¶44

¶45

¶46

ETD. J crt.P 9AJ7 202s

¶47

cum- lll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy District, registered against the petitioner/accused are hereby quashed subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.5,000/_ (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c.No.52.188926279, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch (2OO7O), tFSC Code:SBtN0O2O07O, M|CR No.500004057) and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, within a period of two (02) weeks from today and fite proof of the same before the Registry.

¶48

Misceilaneous apprications, if any pending, shafi stand crosed.

¶49

SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

r'"
1,il ,i\it
SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

'1 The Special.Jgdge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (pOA) Act, 1989_Cum_ ttt Additionat Drsirict and Sessions Judg", Si"ri, n"O.jV Oiiriii"i

¶54

The Station House Officer, Ameenpur police Station, Sangareddy District.

¶55

One CC to SRt pApAtAH PEDDAKULA Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

One CC to Ms. V SH|VANI, Advocate tOpUCl

¶57

Two CCs to^pUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶58

Txsry

¶59

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶60

GR/PSL

¶61

Along^{witha copy of Joint Memoof Gompromtse}

¶62

ffffmrgfi***fifififfi

{

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 8,tOBt2OzS

COMMON ORDER

r.A. NOS. 2 AND 3 0F 2025 IN/AND

¶69

? r SiP Zfim
" ..f -\ . r:.,; r,,,r, r..- l i

¶70

CRLP 9037 0F 2025

¶71

ALLOWTNG BOTH THE t.As AND CRLP

¶72

96 lqlu'

¶73

¶74

INTHEHIGHcoURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELANGANAATHYDERABAD

¶75

Crl.P.No. oF 2025

¶76

Between:

¶77

Adela Venkatesh^{S/o SrinivasRao,} Aged 32 Years,^{Occ: PrivateEmPloYee,} n7o Ufru"pnrdu^{Village and Mandal, Prakasham Distriot'}

¶78

... Petitioner/Accused

¶79

AND

¶80

1 State of Telangana' Rep. by its^{PublicProsecutor,} Uidf, C'orrt^{for the Stateof Telangana at Hyderabad.}

¶81

...Respondent^No.1

¶82

2 Bondhu Prasanna^{Kumari D/o Venkata Ramanaiah'} Aoed 3'l vears,^{Occ: Private Employee'} nio ff .ruo. 6146,^{BHEL Metro Enclave, Kishtareddypet'} Ameenpur^{tr/landal,Sanga ReddyDiskict,} UtavaphaOu^{Village and Mandal, PrakashamDis-trict'} ...Respondent^{No.2/DefactoComplainant}

¶83

JOINT MEMO^{FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/AC CUSED AND} RESP^{ONDENT No.2/DEFACTo-coM PLAINANT}

¶84

lt is^{submitted that Petitionerfiled the above criminal petition filed the} above criminal^{petition to quash the proceedingsin S'C'Spl'No'74 of 2024 on} the file of^{Special Judgefor Trialof Cases under SCs/STs (POA)Act' 1989-} Cum-lll Additio.nal^{District and Sessions Judge, Sangai'eddyDistrict at Sanga} Reddy, for^{the oiTen'ceunder sections420,376IPC and sections 3(2XV)of} SCs/STs^{(POA) AmendmentAct, 2015, registered against him pursuant to the} complaint^{lodgedbY me.}

¶85

2lfurthersubmitthatwhilethematterstoodthus,asthedefactocomplainantintendtogetmarryandsearchingformarriagealliancesandthe accusedalsointendingtogoabroa-clasthebotharesufferingduetothe

¶86

tld'^^'s .l3f

¶87

pendency of the proceedings at the intervention of the erders and welr_wisheis of both the parties, the defacto-comprainant agreed to withdraw the compraint on terms of compromise without there being any threat or coercion from anybody as the case was resurted due to the difference between the Petitioner/Accused and the 2nd respondenudefacto-comprainant and as such we arrived at a conclusion that the Accused sha, pay an amount of Rs'7'00'000/- to setre a, the issues and accordingly r received the same. Hence there is no chance of conviction even if the case is tried in view of the settlement between the parties. Hence, it is just and necessary in the interest of justice to compound the offence under sections 420,376rpc and sections 3(2)04 0f scs/srs (poA) Amendment Act, 2015 andquash the proceedings in s'c spr'No ' 74 0f 2024 0n the fire of speciar Judge for Triar of cases under scs/srs (poA) Act, 1989-cum-, Additionar District and sessions Judge,I Sanga Reddy District.

¶88

lt is therefore prayed that this Hon,ble Court may be pleased to compound the offence under sections 420,376 lpC and sections 3(2)(V) of SCs/STs (pOA) Amendment Act, 20.15 and quash the proceedings in s'c'spr.No 74 0f 2024 0n the fire of speciar Judge forTriar of cases under scs/srs (poA) Act, 1989-cum-, Additionar District and sessions Judge, sanga Reddy District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon,bre Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶89

Hyderabad, Date: 12-07-2025

¶90

,a-'{* (Petitioner/Accused)

¶91

o.'r.xJ^ corn."l tJr"'ir,e petitioner

¶92

?c'lq','"r" '^g (2"d Respohderi'UDefacto_Com plainant) o Couns e for the 2nd Respondent

Adela Venkatesh v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adela Venkatesh v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sara Vikram Raj Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Avula Ramulamma Vs Bhonagiri Yadaiah and Another

Mr. Prasad Anand Telang Vs The State of Telangana

Md.Yusuf, Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Anjuri Sashidhar, Vs The State of Telangana

Gundani Anandam, Vs The State of Telangana