'4 •> Si IO vV% IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI^^ " cfV^ ^0 THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA LAj!ios,3&4of2^ IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.938 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION No.938 of Between: 1. Guduri Manoj Kumar, S/o. G.Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged about 30 years, R/o. PCR Pride Building, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2. Guduri Umabala, W/o. G.Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged about 53 PCR Pride Building, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 3. Guduri Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged 55 years, R/o. PCR Pride Building, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 4. Guduri Dheeraj Kumar, S/o. G Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged about 29 R/o. PCR Pride Building, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, Godavari District. years, R/o. years. West ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S.H.O, Disha Women PS., Vishakhapatnam District, Rep. Through the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Guduri Sirisha, W/o. Manoj Kumar, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o. D.No. 17/129, Plot No. 105, Akkayyapalem, Vishakapatnam City, Andhra Pradesh. Narasimha Nagar, ...Respondents/Defacto Complainant 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 CC. No. 1227 of 2022 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Visakhapatnam. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 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 grant stay of all further proceedings, including Presence / Appearance of the Petitioners herein in CC.No. 1227 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. at I.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Guduri Sirisha, W/o. Manoj Kumar, Aged about 28 years, Occ; Software Engineer, R/o. D.No. 17/129, Plot No. 105, Akkayyapalem, Vishakapatnam City, Andhra Pradesh. Narasimha Nagar, ... Petitioner/2"'* Respondent/Defacto Complainant AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S.H.O, Disha Women PS., Vishakhapatnam District, Rep. Through the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Guduri Manoj Kumar, S/o. G.Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged about 30 years, R/o. PCR Pride Building, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 3. Guduri Umabala, W/o. G.Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged about 53 years, R/o. PCR Pride Building, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 4. Guduri Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged 55 years, R/o. PCR Pride Building, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 5. Guduri Dheeraj Kumar, S/o. G Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged about 29 years, R/o. PCR Pride Building, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ...Respondents/ Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 4 Petition under Section 320(2) 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 2"^* Respondent/De-facto Complainant herein to compromise/ compound the matter with the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 herein in the present Criminal Petition filed in relation to CC.No.1227 of 2022 the file of 1®* Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. on I.A. NO: 4 OF 2025 Between: Guduri Sirisha, W/o. Manoj Kumar, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o. D.No.17/129, Plot No. 105, Narasimha Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Vishakapatnam City, Andhra Pradesh. ... Petitioner/2"'^ Respondent/Defacto Complainant AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S.H.O, Disha Women PS., Vishakhapatnam District, Rep. Through the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Guduri Manoj Kumar, S/o. G.Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged about 30 years, R/o. PCR Pride Building, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 3. Guduri Umabala, W/o. G.Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged about 53 years, R/o. PCR Pride Building, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 4. Guduri Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged 55 years, R/o. PCR Pride Building Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 5. Guduri Dheeraj Kumar, S/o. G Jagadeesh Kumar, Aged about 29 R/o. PCR Pride Building, Housing Board Colony Godavari District. years, Bhimavaram, West ...Respondents/ Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 4 Petition under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the 2"'" Respondent/De-facto Complainant herein to compromise/ compound the matter with the Petitioners/Accused herein in the present Criminal Petition filed in relation to CC.No.1227 of 2022 the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam. stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Nos.1 to 4 on This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Ashwani Prosecutor on behalf of the Advocate for the Respondent Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Respondent No.1 and of Sri Ravi Kiran Arukutia No.2. The Court made the following: % 010045462( IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 938/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED jri Manoj Kumar and Others AND SPONDENT/COMPLAINANT State Of Andhra Pradesh and rs Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): ;hwani kum, Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): Lie PROSECUT( The Court made the following: ( 2 VS,J Crlp_938_2025 I.A.Nos.S and 4 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION N0.938 OF 2025 ORDER: I.A.No.G of 2025 and l■A.No.4 of 2025 I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 are filed under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking permission to compound/compromise the matter with the petitioners herein in the present criminal petition filed in relation to C.C.No.1227 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam as the matter is settled outside the Court and they entered into compromise. Learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed for compounding the offences. Defacto complainant is present and the petitioners/accused also present and they are identified by their counsel and Public Prosecutor, produced Photostat copies of aadhar cards in proof of their are identity. On enquiry, the parties stated that they settled the issue outside the Court due to intervention of elders and well-wishers and they wanted to lead peaceful life. Further, when terms of compromise are explained in vernacular language, they have admitted to be true and correct. While dealing with the powers of the Court under Section 482 of B.S. Joshi V. State of Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in 3 VS,J Crlp_938_2025 Haryana^' has justified the exercise of power under Section 482 to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-compoundable; “We are, therefore of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing.” The said principle was also cited in Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI^ stating as under: “On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S.Joshi's case and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.” It further observed as under; “Despite the ingredients and the factual content of an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC made compoundable under sub-section(2) CrPC with the leave of the Court. Of course, forgery has not been included as one of the compoundable offences, but it is in such cases that the principle enunciated in B.S. Joshi case becomes relevant." as we the same has been of Section 320 By applying the principle laid down in the above judgments, since the settlement is in the interest of the parties and as the continuance of ‘ 2003 4 see 675 ^ 2008 9 see 677 4 VS,J Crlp_938_2025 the proceedings after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be futile exercise; I find that it is a fit case to permit the petitioners and as well as the defacto complainant to compound the offences in accordance with the terms of compromise stated in the joint memo filed by both the parties dated 29.01.2025. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 are ordered. Crl.P.No.938 OF 2025 In view of the orders passed in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 in Crl.P.No.938 of 2025, the present criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1227 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam are hereby quashed. Registry is directed to annex a copy of the joint memo dated 29.01.2025 to this order. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, Vishakhapatnam District. 2. The Station House Officer, Disha Women Police Station, Vishakhapatnam, Vishakhapatnam District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri N Ashwani Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Ravi Kiran Arukutla, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies TK sree *along with the Joint Compromise Memo in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in CRLP No.938 of 2025 p high court DATED;30/01/2025 ORDER of 2025 in/and CRLP.No.938 of 2025 I.A.Nos.3 & 4 L » X 11| FEB 2025 CO & Current Section ORDERING THE I.A.Nos.3 & 4 of 2(^5 AND allowing the criminal petition 32 JOINT MEMO OF COMPROMISE It is respectfully submitted that the above criminal petition is filed to quash the CC.No.1227 of 2022 on the file of Hon’ble 1®^Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the under section 498-A, 354-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 1. offences 2. It is submitted that after filing of the above criminal petition, the Petitioners herein and the 2"^Respondent have amicably settled their disputes out of the court and by discussing with the elders. Therefore, we deem it appropriate that the continuation of prosecution against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 herein is unnecessary. It is submitted that the matter is settled out of the Court, I am ready to withdraw the case against the Petitioners /Accused No.1 to 4 in the above referred Criminal Petition. Therefore, in the above said circumstances, we agree that the criminal case instituted against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 before the the file of Hon’ble 1®‘Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the offences under ] 3. CC.No.1227 of 2022 on 33 section 498-A, 354-A. 506 Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ^ Hence this Joint Memo. of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 1961 can be quashed. I ‘ 2, (J. . petitioners de-facto complainant COUNSEL FQ etitioner COUNSEL FOR DEFAC COMPLAINANT