APHC010329432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6787 OF 2025 Between: Byreddy Shabari, D/o. Byreddy Rajasekhar Reddy, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Pathamuchumarri Village, Pagidyala Mandal, Kurnool District, Rep by her GPA Holder Yerram Aruna Reddy S/o.Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged about 46 years, R/o.H.NO.5-5-7/29/1B, Devi Nagar, Road No.4, Kukatpally, Hyderabad ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND 1. Tbe^State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public prosecutor. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. .. .Respondent/Complainant 2. Rokkam Rambabu, (In charge sheet the name is mentioned as Rokku Rokku Rambabu S/o. Rokkam Venkateswarlu, Aged about 28 years, R/o.Pathamuchumarri Village, Pagidyala Mandal, Kurnool District ...Respondents/Defacto Complainant 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 proceedings in SC.No.39 of 2023 on the file of the Judge, Special Court for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 359 (6) of BNSS circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the parties to compound the offence in SC.No.39 of 2023 on the file of Judge. Special Court for SC & ST (POA) Act- cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 359 (2) of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise between the parties in SC.No. 39 of 2023 on the file of the Judge, Special Court for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool. praying that in the Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P Nagendra Reddy, Advocate Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Sazid Kallur, Advocate The Court made the following Order: APHC010329432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY lA NOs.2 OF 2025 AND 3 OF 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6787/2025 Between: 1.BYREDDY SHABARI, D/0. BYREDDY RAJASEKHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.PATHAMUCHUMARRI VILLAGE, PAGIDYALA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT REP BY HER GPA HOLDER YERRAM ARUNA REDDY S/O.YERRAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/0.H.N0.5-5-7/29/1B, DEVI NAGAR, ROAD N0.4, ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATHI. ' -2.ROKKAM RAMBABU, (IN CHARGE SHEET THE NAME IS . MENTIONED AS ROKKU ROKKU RAMBABU S/O.ROKKAM VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ■ R/O.PATHAMUCHUMARRI VILLAGE, PAGIDYALA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 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 proceedings in SC.No.39/2023 on the file of the Judge, Special Court for SC and ST (POA) Act- 2 \ cum-VI Additional District the interest of justice. lAJ^: 1 OF pnoK and Sessions Judge Court. Kurnool in Of iA_Na2_QF2o^ =p£rS“r-ar““-“^“' interest ofjusticf ^ndge Court ’ iA_Na^^F2025 ». <1. «■.“«.”&??" "'• »»’•tKsSs" “ of on -cum^VI ■ Kurnool in the of Counsel for the Petitioner/, 1P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the i t SAZID KALLUR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the accused; Respondent/complai'nant(S): following; V 3 COMMON ORDER This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/Accused No.1, to quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No.39 of 2023 pending on the file of the Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases filed under the SCs & the STs (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 353, 447, 506 read with 149 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, 1989 pertaining to Crime No.40 of 2021 of Muchumarri Police Station. 2. A case in Crime No.40 of 2021 of Muchumarri Police Station was registered against accused Nos.1 to 16 for the aforesaid offences and after completion of investigation. L.W17/Y.Sruthi, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur, Nandyal District filed charge sheet and it was numbered as Sessions Case No.39 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases filed under the SCs & the STs (PoA) Act- cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool. 3. While the case is pending, the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present Criminal Petition, praying the Court to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid Sessions Case. 4 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented that both the parties have settled the dispute amicably, out of the Court, at the intervention of their elders and well-wishers. In view of the settlement arrived at, between the parties, respondent No.2/cye facto complainant and petitioner herein/A1 filed I.A.Nos.2 of 2025 and 3 of 2025 seeking to permit the parties to compound the offence and to record the compromise. 5. Petitioner/A1 and respondent No.2/de facto complainant are present. They produced their respective aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ A1 and learned counsel for 2'^'^ respondent/de facto complainant identified both the parties in the open Court. This Court has ^estioned the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant with regard to compromise and he categorically stated he voluntarily entered into compromise with petitioner/A1 only, in terms of compromise memo. This Court is satisfied with the identification of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. In view of the compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. 5 6. In a decision in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi & another^, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus; “12. No doubt that the learned ASG is right in relying on various judgments of this Court which reiterate the legal position that in heinous and serious offences like murder or rape, the Court should not quash the proceedings. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narender Singh v. State of Punjab^, which read thus: “29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC In the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the (2022) 8 Supreme 341 6 me afct ^‘•'syed 6y tff7 tToJfoTfr/^ lIuZZ ^ ^^‘‘^^^' rZ^fosecsT'es TZJ!Z seWement is arrived at immediately after the alleaed zrz ZTi o"L“ hfJ 'ni'estf6ra//on /s sW/ on and eren the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewste ZZ IZl! ZZZ Z bat the edZenosZ ZahrrZZ' ® 'S cm at infancy stage the High Court can show benevolence in exercisino iZ powers favourably, but after prima facie asseZZenl of mentioned above On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almoZ complete or after the conclusion of thZiZdenZeZ coon would be :Za ZSZtoVZe ZZZZX o::n'X“ compromise betewen thlZaZesoTulToZt dTa resulting in acquittal of the omnder who has already been convicted byte I ourt. Here charge is proved under Section 307 ipn and conviction is already recorded and, therefore, there i found guilty of such of a heinous crime IS no question of sparing a convict a crime. ” thZgZZeVolZZhZd't proceedings whetn hetou^ ^nJ the V. 7 charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their mutual relationship. 14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments orjudgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court In exercising its power. . 15. The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove peculiar In the present case. Respondent No. 2 is a young lady of 23 years. She feels that going through trial in one case, where she is a complainant and in the other case, wherein she Is the accused would rob the prime of her youth. She feels that if she is made to face the trial rather than getting any relief, she would be faced with agony of undergoing the trial. 16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted that since the respondent No. 2 herself Is not supporting the prosecution case, even If the criminal trial is permitted to go ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the request of the parties is denied. It will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened " criminal courts. are 17. In that view of the matter, we find that though In a heinous or serious crime like rape, the Court should not normally exercise the powers of quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in order to give succor to Respondent No. 2 so that she is saved from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one as a victim and one as an accused, we find that this is a fit case wherein the extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings. ” 8 , 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & another^, wherein it was held thus: "The appellant and respondent No. 2 were undisputedly In a consensual relationship from 2009 to 2011 (or 2013 stated by the respondent No. 2). It is the say of the respondent No. 2 that the consensual physical relationship an assurance of marriage by the appellant. The complaint has been filed only in 2016 after three years, pursuant whereto FIR dated 16.12.2016 was registered under Section 376 and 420, IRC. On hearing learned counsel for parties, we find ex facie the registration of FIR in the present case is abuse of the criminal process. The parties chose to have physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time. For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or after marriage. Thereafter also three years passed when respondent No. 2 decided to register a FIR. The facts are so glaring as set out aforesaid by us that we have no hesitation in quashing the FIR dated 16.12.2016 and bringing the proceedings to a close. Permitting further proceedings under the FIR would amount to harassment to the appellant through the criminal process itself We fortified to adopt this course of action by the judicial view in (2019) 9 see 608 titled Framed Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ann wherein the factual scenario where complainant was aware that there existed obstacles in marrying the accused and still continued to engage in sexual relations, the Supreme Sourt quashed the FIR. A distinction was made between a false promise to marriage which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. This was in the context of Section 375 Explanation 2 and Section 90 of the IPC, 1860. The Criminal appeal Is accordingly allowed. Impugned Judgment is set aside and the proceedings in pursuance to FIR dated 16.12.2016 stand quashed, leaving parties to bear their own costs. ” as was on are 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh^ the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649 9 Offence under special statute including SC/ST Act, though the offence is against society, can also be quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in certain cases on the basis of compromise, but this power should be exercised during pendency of trial or appeal not thereafter. Paragraph-10 of the above Judgment is quoted as below;- 10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh'*, wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (A/. U. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for - exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/ compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers." 9. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and as the parties have entered into a compromise and compounded the offences, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Sessions Case No.39 of 2023 pending the file of the learned Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases filed under the SCs & the STs (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and on "2021 see Online SC 966. ■'Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided 29*^ September, 2021. •X f 10 Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool, are hereby quashed. against the petitioner/A1 only, 10. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 Criminal Petition No.6787 of 2025 As a sequel thereto, the pending in this Criminal Petition shall of 2025, 3 of 2025 and are allowed. miscellaneous petitions, if stand closed. any. Aoo.o Sd/-USRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To, 1 ■ The Special Court for SC & , Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional J, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sazid Kallur 4. Two CC District and Advocate [OPUC] s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies GPC VNA high court DATED: 02/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 6787 OF 2025 ^ 0 4 AUG 2025 J mntStclio S£AT& Co allowing this criminal petition