IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9147 OF 2023 Between: Sri Bandi Peddi Rajulu, S/o. Sri B. Gandhi, Aged about 43 Years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. H.No.2-129/14, 4TH Floor, Above Madhav Electricals, Gajularamaram, Qutubullapur Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad-500 055, Telangana State ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND 1. Smt. Bandi Rama Devi, W/o. Mr.Bandi Peddi Rajulu, D/o. Sri Ooduri Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 33 Years, Occ House-wife, R/o. Padamatipalem Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent No.1/Complainant 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court Premises, Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Respondent 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 call for the entire record of C.C.No.l34 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikalur, Krishna District against the Petitioner/Accused No.I and to quash the same as abuse of process of law in the light of Memorandum of Understanding for compromise 13.10.2023 between the parties by acquitting the Petitioner/accused No.I in C.C.No.134 of 2016. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 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 including appearance of the petitioner in CC.No.134 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikalur, Krishna District pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. I.A. NO: 1 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 compound the offence in C.C.No.134 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikalur, Krishna District, to quash the proceedings against the Accused no.1 in CC.No.134 of 2016 by acquitting the offences for which he has charged. I.A. NO: 2 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 grant permission to compound the offence in C.C.No.134 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikalur, Krishna District, to quash the proceedings against the Accused No.1 in CC.No.l34 of 2016 by acquitting the offences for which he has charged. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A V KONDAIAH, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri S SyamSunder, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER APHC010586252023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9147/2023 Between: Sri Bandi Peddi Rajulu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Smt Bandi Rama Devi and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.AVKONDAIAH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI lA Nos.1 and 2 OF 2024 in/and Criminal Petition No:9147 OF 2023 C O MMON ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/A1, to quash the proceedings in CC No. 134 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikalur, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A I PC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner herein/AI, learned counsel for the respondent No.l/de facto complainant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 2. State are present before this Court. The complainant and accused produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 identified their parties in the open Court. The concerned police officer is present before this Court and identified the parties. This Court questioned the respondent No.1/c/e facto complainant 3. with regard to compromise, and she categorically stated to the extent that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner r 3 4 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 of the compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. 4. 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 2012 (9) Scale 257 4 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 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 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^ords, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair 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.” or V 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 offences, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC No. 134 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class 5. Magistrate, Kaikalur is hereby quashed. 6. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 and Criminal Petition No.9147 of 2023 are allowed. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikalur, Krishna District. 2. One CC to Sri. A V Kondaiah, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S SyamSunder, Advocate.[OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Fligh Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:07/02/2025 ORDER X 2 ^ FEB 2025 ^ CRLP.No.9147 of 2023 o Co ^ . Current Section ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION AS COMPROMISE