Allowed

Modugula Anil Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Feb 2026CRLP/313/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 338 r/w 3(5) BNS. Parties settled their dispute and filed a joint memo seeking compounding. After the Legal Services Committee verified identification and voluntariness, the Court allowed the applications and quashed the FIR against all accused, subject to costs.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No. 248 of 2025 of PS Varni quashed against petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 6; I.A.Nos. 3 and 4 of 2026 allowed, subject to payment of Rs.15,000 costs.

Modugula Anil Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IMONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

l.A- No.3 d 4 of 2026 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 313 OF 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

Modugula Anil Kumar, S/o Late Ramakrishna Reddy Aged about 52 years, Occ: Employee R/o H. No. 9-58/2, S. N. Puram Village Varni fVlandal, Nizamabad District.

¶10

fi/ovva vijaya Lakshmi,, wo L. sambasiva Rao Aged about 75 years, occ: Housewife R/o H. No. 9-58/2, S. N. Puram Village Varni tMandal, Nizamabad District.

¶11

Kurmindlalaxman,, S/o Gangadhar Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculturist R/o H. No. 4-3512, fVlarket Road Near Govt. Hospital, S. N. Puram Village Varni NIandal, Nizamabad District.

¶12

PuppalaDevendhar, S/o Sailu Aged about 51 years, Occ: Employee R/o H. No. 10-10-292, Nagaram Jawahar Road, Nizamabad.

¶13

Sandhi Benson Raju,, S/o SandhiVydhur Yam Aged about 3g years, Occ: Employee R/o 04-03, Gopanpalle Mubaraknagar, Nizamabad.

¶14

Madana Govardhan Reddy, S/o Chenchi Reddy Aged about 26 years, occ: Sales & Marketing R/o H. No. 2-2511, Vallur Village Kakumanu lt/andal, Guntur District.

¶15

...Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 6

¶16

AND

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Bldgs, Hyderabad

¶18

..Respondenuprosecution

¶19

Galjavarapu Veeraveni, Wo Late LokamSambasivarao Aged about 64 years, Occ. Housewife R/o H. No. B-3, Satyanarayanapuram, Varni [Vlandal, Nizamabad District.

¶20

...RespondenUDe facto Complainant

¶21

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 call for the records relating to proceedings in Crime No. 248 of 2025 on the file of PS Varni for the offences under Section 336 (2), 336 (3), 340 (2),338 r/w 3 (5) of BNS and quash the same so far as the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 6 is concerned as illegal.

¶22

l.A. No. 2 oF 202ti

¶23

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 pleased to stay al the further proceedings in crime No. 248 of 2025 on the fiie of pS Varni for the offerrces under Section 336 (2), 336 (3), 340 (2).33g r/w 3 (5) of BNS and to pass necessary order or orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of lhe case in the interests of justice.

¶24

l.A. No.3 and 4 ot 2O26

¶25

l.A. No. 3 oF 202$

¶26

Between:

¶27

Ga.jjavarapu Veer;lveni, Wo Late LokamSambasivarao Aged about 64 years, Occ: Housewife R/o H. No. B-3, Satyanarayanapuram, varni Mandal, Nizamabid District.

¶28

AND

¶29

...Petitioner/Respondent No. 2/ Complainant

¶30

Modugula Anil Kumar, S/o Late Ramakrishna Reddy Aged about 52 years, Occ: Employee R/o H. 1,1o. 9-58/2, s. N. Puram Village Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶31

Mowa Vijaya Lakshmi,, Wo L. Sambasiva Rao Aged about 75 years, Occ: Housewife R/o H. No. 9-58/2, s. N. Puram Village Varni lVlandal, Nizamabad District.

¶32

Kurmindlalaxmarr,, S/o Gangadhar Aged about 60 years, occ: Agriculturist R/o H. No. 4-3512, Marke,t Road Near Govt. Hospital, S. N. Puram Village Varni 1yandal, Nizamabad Diskict.

¶33

PuppalaDevendhar, S/o Sailu Aged about 51 years, Occ: Employee R/o H. No. 10_ 10-292, Nagaram .Jawahar Road, Nizamabad.

¶34

Sandhi Benson Raju, sio SandhiVydhur yam Aged about 3g years, occ: Employee R/o 04-03, Gopanpalle [\4ubaraknagar, Nizamabad.

¶35

Madana Govardhan Reddy, s/o chenchi Reddy Aged about 26 years, occ: sales & Marketing R/o H. Nlo. 2-2511,Yallur Village Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District.

¶36

...Respondents/Petitioners/Aicused No. 1 to 6

¶37

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Bldgs, Hyderabad

¶38

...Respondent No.1/Prosecution

¶39

Petition under section 359 (6) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memrrrandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 to compound the offences in Grime No. 248 of 2025 on the file of ps varni for the offences under section 336 (2), 336 (3), 340 (2),338 r/w 3 (5) of BNS against the petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 6 be quashed.

¶40

l.A. No. 4 oF 2026

¶41

Petition under section 359 (2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petilion, the High court may ue

¶42

pleased to record the compromise in the above case for quashment of charges in Crime No. 248 of 2025 on the file of PS Varni for the offences under Section 336 (2), 336 (3), 340 (2),338 r/w 3 (5) of BNS against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 to 6 with the Respondent/De facto complainant in the above criminal Petition.

¶43

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the ltlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of tVlr Kiran Palakurthi ,^{Advocate for} the Petitioners and [/r M Ramachandra Reddy, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of tt/r IM Bhushan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶44

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶45

¶46

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT}

¶47

HYDERABAD

¶48

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.^{SREENIVAS RAO}

¶49

I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2o26

¶50

IN AND

¶51

CRIMINAL PETITION No.313 of 2O26

¶52

Datez 02.O2.2026

¶53

Between^:

¶54

Modugula Anil^{Kumar and live others.}

¶55

Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6

¶56

AND

¶57

State of Telemgana,^{represented by its} Public Prosectttor,^{and another}

¶58

....Respondents

¶59

COMMON ORDER:

¶60

This Criminal Petition has been liled by the^{petitioners/accused} Nos.1 to 6 see,king to^{quash the proceedings in Crime No.248 of 2025} of Varni Poli<:e Station,^{registeredfor the offencesunder Sections} 336(2),336(3), 340(21 and^{338 rlw3(5) of the BharatiyaNyaya} Sanhita, 2023.

¶61

Heard {r.Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel^for the^petitioners, Mr.M.Bhushan Reddy, learned counsel^{for respondentNo.2 and} Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy,^{learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor,} appearing on^.cehalf of respondent No.1-State.

¶62

¶63

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the present Criminal Petition, at the instance of the well wishers, relatives and elders, the parties have settled the disputes pending between them and entered into compromise and filed Joint Memo. Accordingly, the parties have filed I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2026 seeking permission to compound the offences and to record the compromise entered between them.

¶64

This Court uide order, dated 09.01.2026, directed the parties i.e., the petitioners and respondent No.2, to appear before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, on or before 22.01.2026 for their identification. In compliance of the said order, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, has submitted report, dated 19.01.2026, stating that the petitioners, and respondent No.2 were duly identified with copies of their Aadhar Cards. It is further stated that the parties have willfully and without any coercion entered into compromise. i

¶65

In view of the said report and also in view of the compromise entered between the petitioners and respondent No.2 as well as the submissions made by the respective parties, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2026 are allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in Crime No.248 of 2025 of Varni Police Station, are hereby quashed against the petitiorlers.

¶66

J.|

¶67

Accordipgly, the Criminal Petition^{is allowed,subject to payment} of costs of Rs 1O,0O0/- (Rupees ten^{thousand only) to the High Court} Legal Serviceri Committee, Hyderabad^{and Rs.5,0O0/- (Rupeesfive} thousand onl.1) to the Telangana^{High Court AdvocatesAssociation,} Hyderabad, bv the petitioners, on^{or before13'O2'2026'}

¶68

Miscella.neous applications,^{pending if any, shall standclosed.}

¶69

SD/. C. DEEPIKA

¶70

/TRUE^COPY/

¶71

ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR 6

¶72

SECTION OFFICER

¶73

To, 1. The Additional^{Judicial First Class tVagistrateat B.odhan'}

¶74

2.TheStationilouseofficer,VarniPoliceStation,Nizamabad.

¶75

Two CCs^{to the PublicProsecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at} Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶76

One CC to^{Siri Kiian Palakurthi,Advocate IOPUC]}

¶77

one CC to^{Siri M Bhushan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶78

Two CD^CoJlies

¶79

Sa/PSL

¶80

¶81

(Along witl'r a copy^{of Joint lMemoof Compromise)}

¶82

NOTE :

¶83

Total Amourrt^{of Rs. 15,000i- ( Rupees Fifteen thousand only )has been paid} by Sri Kiran^{Palakurthi, Counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the Hon,ble Court} vide order dated -02.02.2026 as Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the Telangana High^{CourtAdvocates Association, Hyderabad and Rs' 10'000/-(Rupees} Ten thousand^{onll) to The High court Legalservices committee and filed Memo as} proofofcomplianr:eUSRNo'13418of2026'dated05-02-2026'

i- 1

--^</sup>

-."-ri

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0210212026

ORDER

l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2O26 ln/And

¶91

CRLP.No.313 of 2026

¶92

7
,{ HE STA
oo 0 6 ttB 2025
t

¶93

¶94

ALLOWING TllE l.A.Nos. 3 and 4 AND THE CRLP. KS €L a[:-lra ,

¶95

'&-

¶96

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

¶97

oF 2U26 CRL.^{P. NO.}

¶98

B ETW^EEN:

¶99

Modugula Modugula^{Anil Kunnr' S/o Late RarrakrishnaReddy}

¶100

Modugula Modugula 52 Years'^occ:EmPloYee

¶101

' ngJ "-bor-rt

¶102

Fii;n.^{tto, s-s8/Zs. N q{qT village}

¶103

\iu-rni^{nl.ndal,N izamabad D istrict'}

¶104

L' Movva^{VijayaLakshmi'W/o L Sambasiva Rao} A;J;b"il.75 Y"'tt' 9.*; Hor'rsewife ti6H-^{N" .s'58/z,s' N' P.uI?T villae} V"tni^{rt r;ndat, N izanrabadD istrict'}

¶105

'' Kurmindla^{Laxnun'S/o Gangadhar} is"J;b.m^{oo y93'.tt of: Asriculturist} Fil-H.^{No-a-svz,Market} l*d Nlear^{Govt. ffoJp-''af} '^{S' Nt Puram Village}

¶106

¶107

Viloi-ft^{f .ndul, N i-rnabadD istrict'}

¶108

PuPPala^{Devendhar' Slo Sailu} , ,

¶109

n[i-iuo,rt si Years' ocr;' enfi\tl

¶110

Wo H.^{No' 1A.10-292' Nagaram}

¶111

fi"h.r^{Road'Nizamabad}

¶112

Sandhi'Benson^{Raju' S/o Sandhi Vydhur Yam}

¶113

¶114

Aged^{iUo"t 39} Ymrs',^{Orc' o'--tV}

¶115

Rio M-03,^GoPanPalle . ,

¶116

M ubaraknagar' ubaraknagar'^{N izarnaoao'izarnaoao'}

¶117

M ubaraknagar' ubaraknagar'^{N izarnaoao'izarnaoao'} ,

¶118

1. Madana^{Covardhan Reddy' S/o Chenchi Reddy}

¶119

Ag€d "Uo't^{il1""o' o""'} 9-'lo^{& Marketing} R/o H'^{rr"' i-i6li' Vallur Villase} Kakurnnu^{Mandal'Guntur District'} ...PetitionerdAccused^{No' 1 to 6}

¶120

AND

¶121

1.
tr
r: *6{#d
I
q * * .-...

¶122

Ga^javarapu veeraveni , w/o Late Lokam sanrbasivarao

¶123

Ag,:d about 64 years, Occ. Housewife

¶124

Satyanarayanapuram, Varni Mandal Nizanrabad District.

¶125

., . Respondent/De facto Complainant

¶126

JOINT MEMO O F TER MS OF COMPRO M ISE

¶127

lt is submitted that based on the Complaint of the Respondent No. 2, a case in C rinre No- 248 of 2025 was registered before PS Varni for the offences und,:r Section 3g6 (2),336 (3), 340 e),338 r/w 3 (5) of BNS. tn the neerntime, the PetitionervAccused No. 1 to 6 and Respondent No. 2 corrpromised the matter.

¶128

Z lt is submitted that with the intervention of the elders on both sides, De fact': Complainant and Amused settled the above issue amicably and tl-re conrplainant agreed to w'ithdraw all the cases pending against Arcused.

¶129

That the Respqndent No. ZlDefacto Complainant has no objection to quash the rrroceedings under section 336 (2),336 (3), uo (2),338 r/w 3 (5) of BN{i against all the aoetred.

¶130

4- Botlr the parties mutually settled all nratters. That the parties declare that

¶131

all tireir clairs have been addr:essed in th of
* * dL d#dt
st{ * * *

Hence, it is prayed by both^{the parties that this HonlbleCourl may} be pleased to quash the proceedings^{in CrirreNo. 248 of 2025on the file}

¶136

of PS Varni in the interes't^{of justice.}

¶137

1 2. qt--LPa^t__-- F 3. 4. ?" 5. g@,-Yk6. Yt'Ct

Hyderabad Date

PETITIO N ERS

Sdd # *

RESPONDENT NO.²

{*.&_

Goursel for the Petitioners

¶144

Counsel for^{the ResPondent No.2}

Modugula Anil Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Modugula Anil Kumar, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kommu Venkateshan, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Abdul Rasheed Siddiqui Vs The State of Telangana

Dasari Naveen, Vs The State of Telangana

Saraswathulla Anirudh, Vs The state of Telangana

Sri. Mandha Krishna alias Manda Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Solanki Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana