IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 in/and CRIMINAL PETITION No.9184 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION No.9184 of 2024 Between: 1. Kella Venkata Subramanyan @ Srinu, S/o. Narsimha Murty, Aged about 44 years, R/o. Y.V Lanka Village, Elamanchili Mandal, Presently at Kattu Kalluva, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Manukonda Srinubabu @ Srinu, S/o. Surya Rao, Aged about 40 years, R/o. 21®* Ward, Lock Peta, Palakollu Town, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Manukonda Kiran, S/o. Vijaya Krishna, Aged about 27 years, R/o. Vadlavanipeta, Palakollu Town, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioners/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 2. Mallula Rambantu @ Rambabu, S/o. Raju, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Siragalapalli Village, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondent Petition under Section 528 of BNSS (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 quash the proceedings f in CC.No.242 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class Magistrate, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. (Prayer is amended as per the court order dated 28.01.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in CRLP No.9184 of 2024) I.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: Mallula Rambantu @ Rambabu, S/o. Raju, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Siragalapalli Village, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Petitioner/Respondent/Defacto Complainant AND 1. Kella Venkata Subramanyan @ Srinu, S/o. Narsimha Murty, Aged about 44 years, R/o. Y.V Lanka Village, Elamanchili Mandal, Presently at Kattu Kalluva, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Manukonda Srinubabu @ Srinu, S/o. Surya Rao, Aged about 40 years, R/o. 21 Ward, Lock Peta, Palakollu Town, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Manukonda Kiran, Manukonda Kiran, S/o. Vijaya Krishna, Aged about 27 years, R/o. Vadlavanipeta, Palakollu Town, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents w Petition under Section 359 (6) of BNSS (under Section 320(6) 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 permit the petitioner to compromise the case CC.No.242 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class Magistrate, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. I.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: Mallula Rambantu @ Rambabu, S/o. Raju, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Siragalapalli Village, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Petitioner/Respondent/Defacto Complainant AND 1. Kella Venkata Subramanyam @ Srinu, S/o. Narsimha Murty, Aged about 44 years, R/o. Y.V Lanka Village, Elamanchili Mandal, Presently at Kattu Kalluva, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Manukonda Srinubabu @ Srinu, S/o. Surya Rao, Aged about 40 years, R/o. 21®* Ward, Lock Peta, Palakollu Town, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Manukonda Kiran, Manukonda Kiran, S/o. Vijaya Krishna, Aged about 27 years, R/o. Vadlavanipeta, Palakollu Town, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Petition under Section 359 (2) of BNSS (under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C) praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of A Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise the offence in terms of compromise and quash the proceedings against the petitioners/1 to 3 in CC.No.242 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class Magistrate, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. I.A. NO: 4 OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings CC.No.242 of 2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class Magistrate, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, including appearance of the petitioners, pending disposal of the Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Dasari S VV S V Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Manikanta Thota, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER APHC010571542024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY. THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3368] WM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9184/2024 Between: Kella Venkata Subramanyam @ Srinu and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitloner/accused(S): 1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.MANIKANTA THOTA 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the followl''*^ /'--'or: y 1 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI lA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2024 in/and Criminal Petition No:9184 OF 2024 COMMON O R D E R: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/Accused, to quash the proceedings in F.I.R No.221 of 2024 of Yelamanchali Police Station, West Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 115(2), 127(2), 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 2. 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/be facto complainant with regard to compromise, and he categorically stated to the extent that he has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners 3. herein/Accused and there is no threat, coercion or undue influence in arriving at the compromise. This Court is satisfied with the identification 3 / 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another,^ held at paragraph No.57, as under: "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 secure 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 power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious 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 are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in 4. 2012 (9) Scale 257 4 relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public i 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 t offences arising 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 5. as the parties have entered into a compromise, and compounded the / offences, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R No.221 of 2024 of Yelamanchali Police Station, West Godavari District is hereby quashed. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 and Criminal Petition 6. No.9184 of 2024 are allowed. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class Magistrate, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. 2. The Station House Officer, Yelamanchili Police Station, West Godavari District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi[OUT] 4. One CC to Sri Dasari S VV S V Prasad, Advocate [OPUO 5. One CC to Sri Manikanta Thota, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies TK vna *along with the copy of the Joint Compromise Memo in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in CRLP No.9184 of 2024 HIGH COURT I DATED:28/01/2025 COMMON ORDER I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 in/and CRLP.No.9184 of 2024 13 FEB 2025 . Current section . ^ 'X o Co, ALLOWING THE I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2024 AND ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI lANO. OF 2024 in CRL.P.No. OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. Kella Venkata Subramanyan @ Srinu, S/o. Narsimha Murty, Aged about 44 years,R/o. Y.V Lanka Village, Elamanchili Mandal, Presently at Kattu Kalluva Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Manukonda Srinubabu @ Srinu, S/o. Surya Rao, Aged about 40 years, R/o. 21st Ward, Lock Peta, Palakollu Town, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. A 3. Manukonda Kiran,S/o. Vijaya Krishna, Aged about 27 years,R/o. Vadlavanipeta, PalakolluTown,WestGodavariDistrict, Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioner/Accused 1 to AND 1 .The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 2. Mallula Rambantu @ Rambabu, S/o. Raju, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Siragalapalli Village, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District Respondent/ Defacto Complainant 4 Y4 / JOINT MEMO May it please your lordship It is submitted that 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant given a report before the PS, Elamanchili same was registered FIR No. 221 of 2024 on 20.11.2024 for the offences punishable U/S 137(2), 115(2), 127(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. 1. as It is submitted that the above case was registered due to communication gap and misunderstanding between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Later well wishers and elders interfering and clarify the same and 1st petitioner settled the matter amicably and reduced into writing as per the MoU dated 02.12.2024. 2. 3. It is humbly submitted that both are undertook they will not file any petitions/cases/claims against each other in future. This joint memo given with free consent and will. There is no coercion, force or undue influence for giving this joint memo. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise the joint niemo and quash , the proceedings in^.l.R. n6^21 of 2024 dated 2t).11.20 Elamanchili P.S on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge Court cum I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narsapur, West Godavari, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the in circumstances of the case. ^ V Hence, this Joint Memo. Amaravati DATE; 10-12-2024 oJ Petitioner No.1 Petitioner No.2 hA ' Petitioner No.3 Counsel for Petitioner M br Respondent Respondent