Allowed

Vadthya Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Feb 2026CRLP/963/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings under POCSO and BNS regarding an alleged rape case based on a compromise entered between the accused and the complainant. The court allowed the interim applications seeking permission to compound the offence and record compromise, subject to payment of litigation costs to the Legal Services Committee and Advocates Association.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C. POCSONo.23 of 2020 quashed; Criminal Petition allowed; parties required to pay Rs.20,000/- to Legal Services Committee and Advocates Association.

Vadthya Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³³⁰³ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI .'USTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2026 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 963 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vadthya Ramesh, s/o seetharam, Aged about 30yrs, occ: pvt. Employee, R/o Dhanjilaal Thanda, H/o chennaram Village, Kondamallepally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶9

...Petitioner/Acc used

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of relangana, Rep by its public prosecutor, High court of Telangana at Hyderabad

¶12

Ramavath @ Dhanavath Sravanthi, D/o Ravi, wo D.Raja, Aged about 21yrs, occ: Housewife, R/o Dhanjilaal rhanda, Hro chennaram village, Kondamallepally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶13

...Respondents/De-facto Complaina nts

¶14

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminat Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in S.C.POCSO No. 23 of 2020 onthe file of the Fast Track Court for Rape and POCSO Act at Nalgonda.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026

¶16

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 against the Petitioner/accused in S.C.POCSO No. 23 of

¶17

2020 on the file of the Fast Track Court for Rape and POCSO Act at Nalgonda, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition.

¶18

l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 o12026

¶19

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2026

¶20

Between

¶21

Ramavath @ Dhanavath Sravanthi, D/o Ravi, Wo D.Raja, Aged about 21yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o Dhanjilaal Thanda, H/o Chennaram Village, Kondamallepally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶22

...Petitioner/Res;pondent No.2/De-facto complainant in l.A. Nos. 3'and 4 ol2O26

¶23

AND

¶24

Vadthya Flamesh, S/o Seetharam, Aged about 30yrs, Occ: Pvt.:Employee, R/o Dhaniilaal Thanda, H/o Chennaram Village, Kondamallepally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶25

...RespondenUPetitioner/Accused in l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 o12026

¶26

The Stater of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,' High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad

¶27

...Respondents/Respondent No.I in l.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2O26

¶28

Petition under 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 permi,: the petitioner/respondent No.2 to compound the offences with the respondenUpetitioner/ Accused herein by allowing the Criminat Petition filed by the petitioner against S.C.POCSO No. 23 of 2O2O on the file of the Fast Track Court for Rape and POCST) Act at Nalgonda.

¶29

l.A. NO: 4 OF 20',26

¶30

Petition unrler Section 359 (2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to record compromise between the respondent No.1/Petitioner/accused and the petitionerl2nc respondenUde-facto complainant in S.C.POCSO No. 23 of 2O2O on the file of the t:ast Track Court for Rape and poCSo Act at Nalgonda.

¶31

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati , Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri'Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri K Kalidas, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶32

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶33

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶35

I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2O26 IN/AND

Date: 019.o12.20126

Between :

Vadthya l?amesh

.... Petitioner/Accused

¶40

AND

¶41

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its^public prosecutor, High Cotrrt of Telangana at Hyderabad and another

¶42

....Respondents

¶43

:: COMMON ORDER::

¶44

Thirs criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in S.c. Pocso No.23 of 2o2o on the file of the Fast Track court for Rape and pocso Act at Nalgonda, for the offenc,e under section 3s4-D of the tndian penal code, 1g60 and Section r'.2 of the protection of children from sexual offences (pocso) Act,2OL2.

¶45

2- Heard Mr. sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Kalidas, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and

¶46

¶47

Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla,^learned Additional^{Public Prosecutor,} appearing on behalf of respondent^No.l-State.

¶48

learned counsel for the^petitioner submitted^{that during the} pendency of the present Criminal Petition, at the^{instanceof the well} wishers, relatives and elders, the^parties have^{settledthe disputes} pending between them and entered into compromise^{and filed Joint} Memo. Accordingly, the parties^{have filed I.A.Nos.3and 4 of 2026} seeking permission to compound the^{offences and to recordthe} compromise respectively.

¶49

This Court uide order, dated 2A.01.2026,^{directedthe parties} i.c., the petitioner and respondent^No.2, to^{appear beforethe High} Court L,egat Services Committee, Hyderabad,^{on or before04.02.2026} for their identification. In compliance^{of the said order, the Secretary,} High Court l*gal Services Committee,^{has submitted a report,dated} 04.02.2026 stating that the^{petitioner and respondent No.2 were duty} identified. It is further stated that^{the partieshave willfully and} without any coercion entered into compromise.

¶50

In view of the said reports and^{also in view of the compromise} entered between tJle^petitioner and^{respondentNo.2 as well as the} submissions made by^{the respective parties, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2026} are allowed. Consequently, the^{proceedingsin S.C. POCSONo.23of}

¶51

¶52

2O2O on the lile of the Fast Track Court for Rape and pOCSO Act at Nalgond:r, are hereby quashed against the petitioner/accused.

¶53

Ac':ordingly, the Criminal. petition is allowed, subject to pa5ment of an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the High Court kgal Services Committee, Hyderabad, and Rs.S,OOO/_ (Rupees live thousand only) to the Telangana High Court Advocates, Association, Hyderabad, by the petitioner, on or before LT.O2.2026.

¶54

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶55

SD/- P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Fast Track Court for Rape and pOCSO Act at Nalgonda. 2. The First Additional District Sessions Judge Court at Nilgonda.

¶62

The Station House Officer, Kondamallepally police Statio_-n, Nalgonda. 4. Two cc:; to the Pubric prosecutor, High iourt for the state oi Teringana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶63

!. 9n" 99 !o lrilanjeeva^{Reddy Gartapati,Advocate} [OpUC]

¶64

9n"^{CCto Sri K Katidas,Advocate} IOPUC]

¶65

Two CD Copies

¶66

¶67

Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise) w*

¶68

NOTE:

¶69

Total Amount of Rs. 20,000/_ ( Rupees Twenty thousand only ) has been paid by sri Sanjeeva Reddy Garrapati, counser for the petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble court r,'ide order dated os.oz.2o26 as Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the^'[elangana High court Advocates Association, Hyderabad and Rs. 15'000/- (Rupe'es Fifteen thousand onry) to The High court Legar services committee, Hycrerabad and fired Memo as proof of compriance USR No. 1gg83 of 2O26, dated 16-02-2025.

HIGH COUR]'

DATED: 0910212026

COMMION ORDER

l.A. Nos. 3 arrd 4 of 2026 IN/AND

¶74

CRLP.No.96:3 of 2026

¶75

'4=
riE S
tJi{'
C)
A 7 l:iq ?A?E z

¶76

ALLOWING THE l.A. Nos. 3 & 4 ot 2026 AND CRLP.

¶77

herein , to compound the offence with the Petitioner herein by allowing the Criminal Petition fil Petitioner and pro""eaing; againsf''them may be q

¶78

¶79

No. 23 of this Hon'bte

¶80

the case.

Vadthya Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadthya Ramesh 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

Sri Hothwal Mukesh Kumawath, Vs The State of Telangana

Saheb Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Pudari Swapna Vs The State of Telangana

Garigaboina Chandra Shekar Vs Sri. Jangam Harish Kumar

Mrs. Akther Jahan, Vs The State of Telangana

Athmakuri Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana