■ 'i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI^^^ FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY I.A.NOS.I & 2 OF 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE N0.197 OF 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.197 of 2023 Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to call for the pertaining to the Crl.A.No.246 of 2018 dated 21.10.2022 and set-aside the order passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudiwada in Crl.A.No.246 of 2018 dated 21.10.2022 filed against the order passed by the Judicial ISt class Magistrate, Kaikalur, dated 22.06.2018 in DVC.No.24 of 2015 to the extent of continuing the protection order against the Petitioner herein and for payment of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- to the 1®‘ Respondent herein which is passed by the trail court at point no. 1 and 3 of para no. 19. records Between; Mr.Bandi Peddi Rajulu, S/o. Sri B. Gandhi, Aged about 37 Years Advocate, R/o. Plot No. 104, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. Presently Residing at H.No.2-129/14, 4 Electricals, Hyderabad-500055, Telangana State. Occ: Pleasant Pearls, Hydershakote, th Floor, Above Madhav Qutubullapur Mandal, R.R.District, Gajularamaram, ...Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent No.1 AND 1. Smt. Bandi Rama Devi, W/o. Peddi Rajula, Aged about 33 Years, Occ: House-wife, C/o. Bandi Satyanarayana, H/o.Korraguntapalem, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. R/o. Raanagaram, Presently residing at; Padamatipalem Village Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521344. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. Kalidindi Mandalam, High Court of ...Respondents/ Respondents/petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 207.^ Petition under Section circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i High Court may be pleased to 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the m support of the petition, the pass an order suspending the order passed by the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gudiwada in Crl.A.No.246 of 2018 dated 21.10.2022 pending disposal of the criminal revision petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2074 Between: Smt. Bandi Rama Devi, W/o. Peddi Rajulu, Aged about 33 House-wife, Years, Occ; Raanagaram, C/o. Bandi Satyanarayana, R/o. H/o.Korraguntapalem, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. Presently residing at; Padamatipalem Village, Kalidindi Mandalam Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521344. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.1/Defacto-complainant AND 1. Mr.Bandi Peddi Rajulu, S/o. Sri B. Gandhi, Aged about 37 Years, Occ; Advocate, R/o. Plot No. 104 Cyberabad, Hyderabad. Presently Residing at H.No.2-129/14, 4 Electricals, Hyderabad-500055, Telangana State. Pleasant Pearls, Hydershakote, Floor, Above Madhav R.R.District, Gajularamaram, Qutubullapur Mandal, ...Respondent No.1/Petitioner/ Revision Petitioner/Respondent 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. High Court of ...Respondent No.2/ Respondent Petition under Section 320(2) R/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise (Memorandum of Understanding/Compromise) entered in between the Petitioner and 1=' Respondent/husband on 13.10.2023 and in view of the order of the Family Court, at L.B.Nagar, R.R. District, Hyderabad in FCOP.No.227 of 2022, dated 21.12.2023, by allowing the CRLRC.No.197 of 2023. lA NO: 2 OF 2074 Between: Smt. Bandi Rama Devi, W/o. Peddi Rajuiu, Aged about 33 Years, Occ: House-wife, C/o. Bandi Satyanarayana, R/o. [ H/o.Korraguntapaiem, Mudinepaiii Mandai, Krishna District. Raanagaram Presentiy residing at: Padamatipalem Viiiage, Kaiidindi Mandaiam Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521344. ...Petitioner/ Respondent No.1/Defacto-complainant AND Mr.Bandi Peddi Rajulu, S/o. Sri B. Gandhi, Aged about 37 Years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. Plot No. 104, Pleasant Pearls, Hydershakote, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. Presently Residing at H.No.2-129/14, 4*'^ Floor, Above Madhav Electricals, Gajularamaram, Qutubullapur Mandal, R.R. District, Hyderabad-500055, Telangana State. ...Respondent No.1/Petitioner/ Revision Petitioner/Respondent The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. 2. ...Respondent No.2/ Respondent Petition under Section 320(6) R/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant permission to compromise the CRLRC.No.197 of 2023 by allowing the same as prayed for in view of the compromise between the parties. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A V Kondaiah Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri S Syamsunder Rao Counsel for Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: APHC010070472023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY lA NOs.1 OF 2024 AND 2 OF 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 197/2023 Between: Mr.Bandi Peddi Rajulu ...PETITIONER AND Smt Bandi Rama Devi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AVKONDAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.S SYAMSUNDER RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 COMMON ORDER:- This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’), is filed by the petitioner herein/respondent No.1 against the Judgment, dated 21.10.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2018, whereunder and whereby the Criminal Appeal was partly . allowed by setting aside the Order, dated 22.06.2018 in DVC No.24 of 2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru, to the extent of directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 herein towards alternative accommodation in addition to the maintenance amount awarded in favour of respondent No.1 in MC No.38 of 2015. 2. An application vide DVC No.24 of 2015 was filed by the respondent No.1 herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘the DVC Act’) on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikalur against the petitioner herein and others seeking Protection Order. Vide Order, dated 22.06.2018, the learned Magistrate allowed the DVC No.24 of 2015 granting protection order under Section 18 of the DVC Act in favour of the respondent No.1 herein besides other reliefs. 3 3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner herein preferred appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2018 on the file of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Gudivada. On reappreciation of entire evidence brought on record, the Appellate Judge, wde Judgment, dated 21.10.2022, partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order, dated 22.06.2018 passed in DVC No.24 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru to the extent of directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent No.1 herein towards alternative accommodation to her in addition to maintenance amount awarded in MC No.38 of 2015. However, the learned Appellate Judge confirmed the Order, dated 22.06.2018 passed in DVC No.24 of 2013 in respect of granting protection order and compensation for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of respondent No.1 herein. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the petitioner herein preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. On 07.02.2025, when the matter was taken up, petitioner herein/appellant and respondent No.1/petitioner are present before this Court. They produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/appellant and the learned counsel for 1®* respondent' 4. 4 herein/petitioner identified both parties in the open Court. This Court questioned respondent herein/petitioner with regard to compromise and she categorically stated to the extent that on the advice of elders and well-wishers, a settlement was arrived between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and the same was reduced into writing on 13.10.2023 and in terms of MoU, the petitioner and respondent No.1 obtained divorce under Section 13 (8) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the HM Act’) and their marriage was dissolved by way of decree of mutual consent vide Order, dated 21.12.2023 in FCOP No.227 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. The respondent No.1 further submitted that in terms of MoU entered between the petitioner and respondent No.1, she withdrew all the allegations and claims made against the petitioner in DVC No.24 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru. The respondent No.1 stated that she voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner herein and there is no threat. coercion or undue influence in arriving at the compromise. This Court is satisfied with the identification of the 5. parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. Parties 5 filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 and lA No.2 of 2024 seeking to permit them to enter into compromise and to record the compromise. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another^ the Hon’ble Apex court held at paragraph No.57, as under; 6. "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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 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 3 2012 (9) Scale 257 6 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. ” 7. ” 7. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and as the parties have entered into a compromise and compounded the case, there is no hindrance to record the compromise. Accordingly, the Order, dated 22.06.2018 passed in DVC No.24 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru, is set-aside. 8. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 of 2024 and 2 of 2024 and Criminal Revision Case No. 197 of 2023 are allowed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District. 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikalur, Krishna District. 3. The Station House Officer, Kalidindi Police Station, Krishna District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi[OUT] One CC to Sri A V Kondaiah, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri S Syamsunder Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 4. 5. 6. 7. TK sree (*along with the Joint Compromise Memo in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in CRLRC No. 197 of 2023) HIGH COURT DATED:07/02/2025 COMMON ORDER I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 in/and CRLRC.No.197 of 2023 5 2 4 FEB 2025 ^ . Current beciion ^ ALLOWING THE I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 AND ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI CRLRC.no. 197 OF 2023 Between: Mr. Bandi Peddi Rajulu, S/o. Sri B. Gandhi, Aged about 43 Years, Occ.: Advocate, R/o. Plot No. 104, Pleasant Pearls, Hydershakote, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. Presently Residing at H.No.2-129/14, 4 Floor, Above Madhav Electricals, Gajularamaram, Qutubullapur Mandal, R.R.District, Hyderabad-500 055, Telangana State AND 1. Petitioner/ Applent /1st Respondent-... Smt. Bandi Rama Devi i i n ^ o Srj-Voctt3t4A/eFrkateswEN=a-Ra€, ^ Aged about 33 Years, Occ.: House-wife, C/o. Bandi satyanaryana, R/o. Raanagaram, H/O.Korraguntapalem, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District, presently residing at: ^ Padamatipalem Village, Kalidindi Mandalan^ wDonmnpr Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521344 a’J^^^Respondent/Petiton er WnT memo-FT) Fn BY THE PARTIES 1. i. respondent performed with the petitioner, on Hindu,-Rights and customs, due to the material filed DVC no:2015 against the St l.The Marriage of the 1 dated:18-02-2011 as per disputes, the 1 st respondent was petitioner, before the Krishna district and same dated:22.06.2018 2018, before Hon,ble the same was honerble judicial first class magistrate, Kaikaluru, vide it,s order partly allowed aggrievedthe petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.246 of XI Additional District & Session Judge, Gudiwada , was allowed partly. Aggrieved by the by the said order the present Crlrc no 197 of 2023 is filed before this Hon,ble court and the same is Pending before this Hon,ble Court 2. Pending the said proceedings, at the advice of elders and well wishers a settlement was which was reduced into writing on 13.10.2023. said MOU the Petitioner and the Respondent have obtained divorce under Sec.13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, and dissolved the marriage by mutual arrived between the Respondent and the Petitioner Further, in terms of the consent in 18.02.2011 between them. held on F.C.O.P.No.227 of 2022 which is filed by the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Family Court, L.B.Nagar, At R.R. District, Hyderabad, vide its order dated 21.12.2023. between the Respondent and Petitioner and 3. In the light of MOU enter passed by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District dated 21.12.2023 in FCOP.No.227 of 2022, the nd claims made by her order & decree Court, at L.B.Nagar Respondent has withdrawn all the allegations a DVC.No.24 of 2015 the file the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikalur, Krishna record the compromise and to allow of 2023 pending before this Hon'ble Court as prayed against the Petitioner herein, i.e. 1"^ Respondent in on District, and given her consent ':o the CRLRC.No.197 for. 4. This Joint memo is filled with free consent and will of both the parties, filed the proof of their identity along with this Memo The parties have for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court. ,99V y « It is therefore prayed that, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise (Memorandum of Understanding/Compromise) entered between Petitioner and Respondent on 13.10.2023 and in view of the order of the Family Court, at L.B.Nagar, dated 21.12.2023 in FCOP.No.227 of 2022, by alJowing the CRLRC.No.l97 of 2023 as prayed for and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. Counsel for tf/^etitioner 0. Petitioner /Respondent / 0- RoohrOtfO ocy 1^^ Respondent Counsel for thd,.!^*^ Respondent I Amaravathi .04.2024