Cherlapally Ashok Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Cherlapally Ashok Kumar, S/o. Late Ch.Yadaiah Goud, Age: 51 years, Occ: Pvt Employee, R/o. Villa No. 25, Manasarovar Villas-2, Kanajiguda, Alwal, Hyderabad

¶12

...Petitioner/Accused

¶13

AND

¶14

State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana.

¶15

Ch. Rama Devi, , Wo. Ashok Kumar, Age: 45 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Villa No. 25, Manasarovar Kanajiguda, Alwal, Hyderabad

¶16

...Respondents/Complainant

¶17

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 cc No. 3148 of 2025 on the file of X Additional Judicial First class Magistrate Medchal-Malkajgiri, At Medchal.

¶18

F

¶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 stay all further proceedings, including the personal appearance of the petitioners in cc No. 3148 of 2025 on the file of X Additional Judicial First class Magistrate Medchal-Malkajgiri, At Medchal pending disposal of the euash petition.

¶20

l.A.Nos. 3 and 4 ot 2O26

¶21

l.A. NO: 3 OF 202:6

¶22

Between:

¶23

Ch. Rama Devi, \fot/o. Ashok Kumar, Age: 45 years, Occ: House Wife, Fl/o. Villa No. 25, Manasarovar l(anajiguda, Alwal, Hyderabad

¶24

titioner/Respondent No.2/Defacto complainant in both l.A.Nos. 3 and 4 of 2026

¶25

AND

¶26

CherlapallyAshok Kumar, S/o. Late Ch.Yadaiah Goud, Age: 51 years, Occ: Pvt Employee, R/o. Villa No. 25, Manasarovar Villas-2, Kanajiguda, Alwal, Hyderabad

¶27

...RespondenUAccused in both l.A.Nos. 3 and 4 ot 2026

¶28

State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana.

¶29

...RespondenURespondent No.1 in both l.A.Nos. 3 and 4 of 2026

¶30

Petition und€lr Section 359(6) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petiti,cner/Defacto complainant to withdraw the case in CC No. 3148 of 2025 On the file ol X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Medchal-Malkajgiri, At Medchal against tl're accused no 1.

¶31

l.A. NO: 4OF 2026

¶32

Petition under Section 359(2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandurn of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the t:ompromise and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners/Accuserj in CC No. 3148 ot 2025 On the file of X Addiitonal Judicial First Class Magistrate IVledchal-Malkajgiri, At Medchal.

¶33

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S Viplav Simha Reddy, Advocate fr>r the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Ms Y Kavya Sri, Counsel representing, Ms Vattakunnel Sinthia John, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶34

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶35

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANAAT I TDERABAD}

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.^SREENTVASRAO

¶37

I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2O26 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.788 of 2O26

¶38

Date: 1L.O2.2O26

¶39

Between :

¶40

Cherlapally Ashok Kumar

¶41

. . . Petitioner/ accused

¶42

AND

¶43

The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by PublicProsecutor,} High Court of Telangana,^{and another.}

¶44

....Respondents

¶45

:: COMMON ORDER::

¶46

This Criminal Petition has been^{filed by the petitioner/accused} seeking to quash the^{proceedingsin C.C.No.3148of 2025on the lite of} the X Additional Judicial First^{Class Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri,} at Medchal, registered for the^{offencesunder Section 85 of the} Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha,2023^{(for short 'BNSJ.}

¶47

Heard Mr. S. Viplav Simha^{Reddy, learned counsel for the} petitioner, Ms. Y. Karryra Sri, learned^{counsel representing} Ms. Vattakunnel Sinthia John,^{learned counsel for respondent No.2,} and Mr. Jithendar^{Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public} Prosecutor, appearing^{on behalf of respondentNo.1-State.}

¶48

2

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 trctween them and entered into compromise and filed Joint Memo.^{y'.ccordingly,} the parties have liled I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2026 seeking r,ermission to compound the offences and to record the compromrse respectively.

¶50

This, Court uide sye , d,ated 2Z .Ol .2026, directed the parties i.e., the petitioner and respondent No.2, to appear before the High Court legrl Services Committee, Hyderabad, on or before 07.02.2026 for their iclentification. In compliance of the said order, the Secretary, High Court l,egal Services Committee, has submitted a report, dated o2.o2.2o2r5, stating that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were duly identified' It is further stated that the parties have willfu,y and without any coercion entered into compromise.

¶51

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 submissiorrs made by the respective parties, I.A.Nos.3 and, 4 of 2026 are allowe<r. consequentry, the proceedings in c.c.No.314g of 2o2s on the frl,: of the X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri, at Medchal, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/ itccused.

¶52

3

¶53

Accordingly, the^{Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to payment} of Rs.lo,ooo/-^{(Rupeesten thousand only) to the High court Legal} Services Committee,^{Hyderabad and Rs.S,OOO/- (RupeesIive thousand} only) to the^{Telangana High court AdvocatesAssociation,Hyderabad,} by the petitioners,^{on or before 2l'02'2026'}

¶54

Miscellaneous^{applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.}

¶55

SD'. N.CHANDRA^SEKHARRAO PUTY REGISTRAR

,,TRUE COPY'/

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

Medchal-Malkajgiri,^At

¶60

1. The X Additional^{JudicialFirst ClassMag} Medchal.

¶61

2.TheStationHouseofficer,AlwalPoliceStation,Cyberabad. 3. Two CCs^{to PublicProsecutor,High Court for the Stateof Telangana'at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶62

One CC^{to Sri S Viplav Simha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶63

5oneCCtotVlsVattakunnelsinthiaJohn,Advocate[oPUC]

¶64

,&

¶65

Two CD^CoPies

¶66

Sa/PSL

¶67

Along with^{a copy of Joint Memoof Compromise)}

¶68

NOTE :

¶69

Total Amount^{of Rs. 15,000/-( Rupees Fifteenthousand only ) has been paid} by sri s Viplav^{simha Reddy, counselfor the Petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble} court vide^{orderdated 11.02.2026as Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to} the Telangana^{High courtAdvocates Association, Hyderabadand Rs' 5'000/-} (Rupees Five thousand^{only)to The High court Legal services committee and filed} Memo as^{proof of compliance USR No. 23830of 2026'dated 25-02-2026'}

(

HIGH COURT

DATED: '1110212026

COMMON ORDER

l.A.Nos. 3 and 4 ot 2O26

¶75

ln/and

¶76

CRLP.No.788 of 2026

¶77

1 |tE S lri
t
oo z I
2 7 [{:B 2026
* *
D.t:^

¶78

ALLOWING Tt{E l.A.Nos. 3 and 4 ot 2026 and CRLP.

q (
?'r v

&

_.i

MEMORANDUM OT CNUTAINAI,^PETITION (Under section *%-nf^BNSS) .asr L9

¶83

IN THE HIGH COURT^OF JUDICATURE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶84

Cherlapally Ashok^{KumarS/o-I-ateCh.Yadaiah Goud ,} Age: 5L years, Occ:^{Pvt EmPloYee,} R/o. Villa No.^{25, Manasarovar Villas-2,} Kanajiguda, Alwal,^HYderabad.

¶85

. :.Petitioner/ Accused

¶86

AND

¶87

State of Telangana R"p. by Public^Prosecutor, High Court of^Telangana.

¶88

Ch. Rama Devi,^W /o-^AshokKumar, Age:45 years, Occ:^{House Wife,}

¶89

R/o. Villa No.^{25, ManasarovarVillas-2,} Kanajiguda, Alwal,^HYderabads-

¶90

. . . Respondents/^ComPlainants IOINT^MEMO

¶91

It is submitted^{that the petitioners and respondentNo-2has} resolved their issue^{and entered into an amicable settlement at the} intervention of^{elder and well-wishersof both sides and to this effecta} separate compromise^{petition is also filed'}

¶92

Hence this^joint memo c. -Ag \oh PETITIONER

¶93

t NDENIT NO2

¶94

g Counsel Accused No.1

¶95

Counsel No.2

Cherlapally Ashok Kumar v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cherlapally Ashok Kumar v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teja Satya Swaroop Vs The State of Telangana

Keshaboina Mogili Vs The State of Telangana

Dick Ruthankammireddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Masani Karthik Vs The State of Telangana

Md.Khaleel Baba Vs The State of Telangana

Sri M. Balamallesh, Vs The State of Telangana