In a significant order delivered on November 4, 2025, the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings arising out of a relationship dispute in Sangareddy district. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada allowed a petition filed by four accused persons, bringing an end to Crime No.114 of 2025 registered at Zaheerabad Town Police Station.
The case involved allegations under Sections 69 and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Background of the Case
The complaint was lodged by a 28-year-old woman working as a housemaid. She alleged that she was in a relationship with petitioner No.1 and had entered into a physical relationship believing that he would marry her.
According to the complaint, both families had initially discussed an engagement. However, the engagement did not materialize after the petitioner’s parents reportedly refused to proceed. Following this, the woman approached the police, leading to the registration of an FIR.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners argued that the relationship was consensual. It was also submitted that petitioner No.1 had not attained the legally eligible age for marriage at the time of the alleged incident, and therefore, the allegation that he induced the complainant with a promise of marriage was not sustainable.
On the other hand, counsel appearing for the woman told the court that she was unaware of the legal aspects and had acted out of emotional distress. The court was informed that she no longer wished to pursue the matter.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
Memorandum of Understanding Between Parties
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated September 18, 2025, was placed before the court. The document recorded that both parties had mutually decided to settle their differences.
As per the MoU, the woman agreed to withdraw the case voluntarily. The parties also agreed to delete photographs and videos from their mobile phones and not to contact each other in the future. It was specifically stated that there was no promise of marriage and that both would move on with their lives separately.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, however, cautioned that the initial complaint contained serious allegations and suggested that the compromise might have been influenced by concerns about the complainant’s future marriage prospects.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada noted that although a formal compromise petition had been filed, the court could not mechanically accept it in light of the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan. That ruling clarified that courts should not quash serious and non-compoundable offences involving grave allegations merely because parties settle.
However, the judge examined the specific facts of the present case. The court recorded that the complainant was an illiterate woman who had limited knowledge of legal consequences and marriageable age requirements. It was also noted that she had clearly expressed her intention not to pursue the prosecution.
Referring to Madhukar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the court observed that when parties amicably resolve their disputes and continuation of trial serves no meaningful purpose, the inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised to prevent abuse of process.
“The continuation of trial would not serve any meaningful purpose and would only prolong distress for all concerned,” the order noted while discussing the Supreme Court’s reasoning in similar cases.
The court further observed that if the complainant herself does not support the allegations during trial, the proceedings would only burden the judicial system without any productive outcome.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return to
The Decision
After considering the submissions and the settlement terms, the High Court concluded that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law.
“In view of the above discussion, continuance of proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process,” the court held.
Accordingly, the criminal petition was allowed. Proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.114 of 2025 on the file of Zaheerabad Town Police Station, Sangareddy District, were quashed.
All pending miscellaneous petitions were also ordered to be closed.
Case Title: Madhukar & Ors.v. The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Crl.P. No.12373 of 2025
Decision Date: November 04, 2025
