##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10408 of 2025

Date: 29.01.2026

Between:

Mrs.J.Maji and another.

...Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3

AND

The State of Telangana,

represented by its Public Prosecutor, and another

...Respondents.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to

quash the proceedings in Crime No.439 of 2025 of

Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein the

petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, for the

offences under Sections 64(1), 318(2) and 318(4) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’).

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1-State.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

pursuant to the order, dated 14.08.2025, he sent personal

##PAGE2##

2

notice to respondent No.2 by way of speed post with

acknowledgement due and filed Memo vide USR No.90094

of 2025 on 26.08.2025, and postal track report.

According to the learned counsel, notice sent by him was

delivered to respondent No.2, on 22.08.2025. In spite of

service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter

appearance.

3.2 He further submitted that the petitioners have not

committed any offences and they were falsely implicated

in this case on the ground that they are the parents of

accused No.1. Even according to the allegations made in

the complaint, the ingredients for the offences under

Sections 64(1), 318(2) and 318(4) of the BNS are not

attracted against the petitioners and the said allegations

are made against accused No.1 only.

3.3 He also submitted that accused No.1 had

approached this Court and filed Criminal Petition

No.15306 of 2025 for quashing of the proceedings against

him. In the said case, respondent No.2/de-facto

complainant and accused No.1 filed I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of

2025 to compound the offences and to record the

##PAGE3##

3

compromise on the ground that they had entered into a

compromise. This Court while recording the compromise

quashed the proceedings against accused No.1, on

11.12.2025. By virtue of the same, continuation of the

proceedings against the petitioners is clear abuse of the

process of law.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not

disputed the submissions made by the learned counsel for

the petitioners.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusal of the

material available on record, it reveals that this Court

already quashed the proceedings against accused No.1

vide orders dated 11.12.2025 in Criminal Petition

No.15306 of 2025.

6. In the decision of Asian Paints and another v.

State of Karnataka represented by Department of

Weights and Measures in Criminal Petition No.5119 of

2017 decided on 28.09.2022, the Karnataka High Court

held that even if one of the accused were to compound an

##PAGE4##

4

offence, the other accused can always approach the High

Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. In Kamal Kishore Biyani v. Shyam Sunder Bung

and others1, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that

there cannot be any compounding selectively against a

particular accused. If the complainant compounds the

offence, it is the offence that is compounded and not

against the offender.

8. Though a reading of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. may

give an impression that compounding can be against a

particular accused but the provision when read in its

entirety, Section 320(1) and (2) Cr.P.C. are clear that an

‘offence’ can be compounded and compounding is not

directed against a particular offender.

9. Taking into consideration the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the petitioners and in view of the

orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.15306 of 2025,

dated 11.12.2025, and as per the principle laid down in

the above said judgments, this Court is of the considered

view that continuation of the proceedings against the

1 (2013) 2 ALD (Cri) 460

##PAGE5##

5

petitioners in Crime No.439

Click Here to Read the rest of this document