IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI I.A.NOS. 2 AND 3 OF 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 492 OF 2025 Between: Katti Rajeswara Rao @ Rajesh, S/o.Manikya Rao, Aged about 47 Years, R/o D.No. 1-59, Ganapavaram Karlapalem, Bapatia District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. Through SHO, Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent 2. Marpu Ratnam, S/o Sesikanth @Gnana Ratnam, Aged about 33 Years, R/o. Kattavada Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatia District. ...Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in FIR.No.100/2024 offences under Section 379 of IPC of the Karlapalem Police Station. Bapatia District. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Marpu Ratnam, S/o Sesikanth @Gnana Ratnam, Aged about 33 Years, R/o. Kattavada Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatia District. ...Petitioner/2"‘‘ Respondent/Defacto Complainant AND 1. Katti Rajeswara Rao @ Rajesh, S/o.Manikya Rao, Aged about 47 Years, R/o D.No.1-59, Ganapavaram Karlapalem, Bapatia District. .. .Petitioner/Accused 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. Through SHO, Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent/Respondent 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 me to withdraw the compoundable offence and Quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in FIR No. 100 of 2024, offences under Sections 379 of IPC of the Karlapalem Police Station, Karlapalem, Bapatia District. praying that in the I.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between; Marpu Ratnam, S/o Sesikanth @Gnana Ratnam, Aged about 33 Years R/o. Kattavada Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatia District. ...Petitioner/2"‘' Respondent/Defacto Complainant AND 1. Katti Rajeswara Rao @ Rajesh, S/o.Manikya Rao, Aged about 47 Years, R/o D.No.1-59, Ganapavaram Karlapalem, Bapatia District. ... Petitioner/Accused 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. Through SHO, Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent/Respondent 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 Petitioners and Respondent no.2 and to Quash the proceedings against the Petitioner in FIR No. 100 of 2024 offences under Sections 379 of IPC of the Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatia District. I.A. NO; 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in respect of the Petitioner/Accused in pursuant to FIR.No.100/2024 offences under Section 379 of IPC of the Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatia District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bala Krishna T., Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. and of Sri. SomiSetty Ganesh Babu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: APHC010017562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 492/2025 Between: Katti Rajeswara Rao @ Rajesh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.BALA KRISHNA T Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI I lA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2025 in/and Criminal Petition No:492 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/Accused, to quash the proceedings in F.I.R No.100 of 2024 of Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatia District registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner herein/Accused, learned counsel for the 2'^^ respondent/de facto complainant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State are present before this Court. The complainant and accused produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. nd Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for 2 respondent identified their parties in the open Court. The concerned police officer is present before this Court and identified the parties. This Court questioned the 2"^^ respondent/de facto complainant 3. with regard to compromise, and he categorically stated to the extent that he has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner herein/Accused and there is no threat, coercion or undue influence in arriving at the compromise. This Court is satisfied with the identification of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. In view 3 of the compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another,^ held at paragraph No.57, as under; 4. "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such secure power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and sehous offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public are ^ 2012 (9) Scale 257 4 servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences ahsing out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases. High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case Is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding. ” 5. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and as the parties have entered into a compromise, and compounded the 5 offences, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R No. 100 of 2024 of Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatia District is hereby quashed. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 and Criminal Petition 6. No.492 of 2025 are allowed. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any. pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. .. N » SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Station House Officer, Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatia District Andhra Pradesh. One CC to Sri. Bala Krishna T., Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. SomiSetty Ganesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. PR sree (ENCLOSING THE JOINT MEMO) A' HIGH COURT DATED:21/01/2025 COMMON ORDER I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 in /and CRLP No.492 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRL.P.NO:492 OF 2025 AND I.A.NOS.2 AND 3 OF 2025 ' /At IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI CRL.P.No. OF 2024 Between; Katti Rajeswara Rao @ Rajesh S/o.Manikya Rao Aged about 47 Years, R/o P.No. 1-59, Ganapavaram Karlapalem, Bapatia District. ...Petitioner/Accused. AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep; by its Public Prosecutor High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati Through SHO, Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. 1. ..Respondent 2. Marpu Ratnam S/o Sesikanth @Gnana Ratnam Aged about 33 Years, R/o. Kattavada Village. Karlapalem Mandal, Bapatia District. ..Respondent/Defacto complainant. JOINT MEMO May it please your honour, The Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 herein the advice of the Friends and well wishers submit that on entered into compromise the matter by way of entering into compromise on 12.08.2024. The said Compromise Petition is "filed herewith. As per the said compromise, it is prayed that the proceedings in FIR.No. 100 of 2024 of the Karlapalem Police Station, Bapatia District may be Quashed. The contents of this Joint Memo are to bet true and correct. t- 1 1. Katti RajesWara Rao @ Rajesh Petitioner Counsel for the petitioner. r Marpu Ratnam, Defacto- Complainant/2"'^ respondent Amaravati, Date: -08-2024 Counsel for the Respondent. /