APHC010579062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11231 of 2025 Between: 1. P SARITHA, W/O. LATE MOHANA CHARI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, GUDIYANAMPALLI VILLAGE, PENUMURUMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P AT AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT 2. P GIRIJA, W/O. LATE RAVI ACHARI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, GUDIYANAMPALLI VILLAGE, PENUMURUMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DR G V RAVI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. CHEVURI RAMA SWAMY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused, seeking to quash the charge sheet filed in PRC No. 08 of 2025 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Chitoor, Chittoor District against the petitioner/A-1 filed for the offences punishable under Section 108, r/w.3 (5) of BNS. 2 2. I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 are filed by respondent No.2/defacto complainant seeking permission to compound the offences and to record the compromise between her and the Petitioner/Accused. 3. Petitioner/Accused and Respondent No.2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective learned counsel. Copies of their Aadhar cards attested by their respective counsel are filed for proper identification. 4. The respondent No.2 represented that the accused No.1 is the daughter of her husband’s sister. She further represented that immediately after the death of her son, she was in trauama an signed on the complaint. In fact she does not know anything about the alleged affair between the A1 and A2. She further submitted that her sons’s pension has been cancelled due to mental disturbance in that regard her son committed suicide. Accused is nothing to do with the death of her son. She does not want this case to prosecute further. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor brought to the notice before this Court that selfie video which was sent by the deceased before this Court that had objectionable intimacy between the A1 and A2 that made him to commit suicide. Infact the deceased might have resorted to take divorce instead of ending his life. 3 6. In that view, since the defacto complaint herself is not interested to prosecute the case against the accused, no purpose would be served by continuing the to proceed against the accused. 7. Considering the submissions, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another1, since there is an amicable settlement between them, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the case against the Petitioner / Accused No.1 in PRC No. 08 of 2025 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chitoor, Chittoor District, is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:24.11.2025 RSD 1 2012(10)SCC 303 4 319 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11231 of 2025 Dt.24.11.2025 RSD