APHC010201822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4362/2025 Between: R Sanjeev Kumar and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. S V RUTHVIK Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA The Court made the following: I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4362 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a false case has been registered against the petitioners. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent was pressurized into filing the complaint against the petitioners. 2 The 2nd respondent is present and identified by his counsel, and he submits that he has signed on blank papers, and the police have filed the complaint. The contents of the complaint are not known to him. The petitioners are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 308(5) r/w 3(5) of BNS. 2. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent made a complaint to the DSP, bringing to the DSP's notice that the bank employee was pressured into executing the bank document. 3. Today the parties are present and joint memo is filed for compounding the offence. 4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the offence punishable under Section 308(5) is non-compoundable. It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner is a rowdy sheeter, with Rowdy Sheet No. 74 pending against the 1st petitioner at Nandya Taluk Urban Police Station. 5. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner has also committed other offences, and investigations are pending. 6. Perused the complaint. It is stated in the complaint that the 1st petitioner has proposed to get the car of the 2nd respondent sold to meet the domestic requirements of the 2nd respondent and that the 1st petitioner has forcibly taken the car on 16.01.2025 along with the keys by holding out threat 3 of alienation. The disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are private disputes as seen from the complaint. 7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another1, which lays down the guidelines for considering the quashing of criminal proceedings, FIRs, or complaints while the High Court is exercising its inherent jurisdiction. It is submitted that serious crimes such as murder, rape, dacoity, etc., and offences under Section 307 IPC, ought not to be compromised as they are offences against society. 8. Considering the submissions, the allegations in the complaint are purely private in nature and can be compounded, and cannot be considered as offences against society at any stage of imagination. 9. Considering the same, the Crime No. 15 of 2025 on the file of Nandyal Taluk Police Station against the petitioners is hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 and Criminal Petition No.4362 of 2025 are allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 22.04.2025 PNS 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303 4