APHC010509812026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8584 OF 2026 Between: 1. K Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. K. Viswanath,Aged about 39 years, R/o. H.No.62-210, Chidambara Rao Street,Behind Central Library, Fort, Kurnool,Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati. 2. K Anuradha, W/o. K. Lakshmi Narayana,D/o. Sai Ramesh, Aged about 35 years,R/o. H.No.76-97-213, Raghavendra Nilayam, Nethaji Housing Colony Kurnool Town, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtto 2 quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 1135 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in view of the subsequent amicable settlement entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2, which has been duly recorded and acted upon by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C. No.1060 of 2019, and consequently IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the proceedings in C.C. No.1136 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS 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 in C.C. No.1135 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, insofar as the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is concerned, pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition, IA NO: 3 OF 2026 3 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to permit the 2nd Respondent herein to file the compromise petition in the Criminal Petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 1135 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, arising out of Crime No.14 of 2019 of Mahila Police Station, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, IA NO: 4 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise entered into between the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and the 2nd Respondent/De-facto Complainant and quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C. No.1135 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, arising out of Crime No. 14 of 2019 of Mahila Police Station, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and consequently allow the Criminal Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: S V RUTHVIK Counsel for the Respondents: T CHANDRA SEKAR Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM IA Nos.3 and 4 OF 2026 in/and Criminal Petition No:8584 OF 2026 COMMON ORDER: Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein (A1), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1135 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. It is represented that both the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of the Court at the intervention of their elders and well-wishers. In view of the settlement arrived at between both the parties, they filed IA Nos.3 and 4 of 2026 seeking to permit them to compound the offences and to record the compromise. 3. It is stated by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant in the affidavit filed in support of IA No.3 of 2026 that as per the advice of the well-wishers and family elders of both sides, she 5 compromised the matter. She further stated in the affidavit that there is no coercion, force or misrepresentation from anybody in giving the said affidavit or in compounding the present case and out of her free will and wish, she was giving the affidavit. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 5. In State of M.P. V. Laxmi Narayan1, after perceiving the well-established principles, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, 1 (2019) 5 SCC 688 6 rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still 7 under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh’ 2 should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5.3 While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.” 6. In this context, Apex Court, by reiterating the principles in Ram Gopal Vs. State of M.P.4, in its vivid terms expressed as under: 19. We thus, sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences compoundable within the statutory framework the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C or vested in this Court under Article 142 of Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings bearing in mind: 2 [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] 3 [Ed.: Para 15.5 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./22/2019 dated 3-4-2019.]. 4 2024 (14) SCC 531 8 19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society; 19.2 Seriousness of injury, if any; 19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; and 19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” 7. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another5, by dealing with law on the subject, in its clear words, affirmed the above principles. 8. It is pertinent to note that, the main object of Section 498A proceedings is to prevent the criminal process from continuing when the dispute is essentially matrimonial and personal in nature and the parties have genuinely settled their differences. Although Section 498A is a non-compoundable offence, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in appropriate cases. The purpose is not to encourage compromise in genuine cases of cruelty, but to ensure that where the matrimonial dispute has 5 (2025) 4 SCC 78 9 been amicably resolved and the possibility of conviction is remote, continuing the criminal case does not result in unnecessary harassment or abuse of the process of law. 9. Today, when the case is called, both the parties are present before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent identified both the parties in the open Court. This Court questioned the de facto complainant with regard to compromise, and she has categorically stated that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners herein, and terms of the compromise read as follows: “4. It is respectfully submitted that the settlement arrived at between the parties provides for a total settlement amount of ₹23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs only) towards full and final settlement of the monetary claims/disputes between the parties. 5. It is respectfully submitted that, in terms of the said settlement, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 has already paid a sum of ₹13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) to Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 021432, dated 22.04.2026, drawn on HDFC Bank, and the said Demand Draft has been received by Respondent No.2 towards part of the agreed settlement amount. It is further respectfully submitted that the Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant acknowledges receipt of the aforesaid amount of ₹13,00,000/- and the Demand Draft evidencing the said payment is being filed along with the present Joint Memo for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court. 10 6. It is respectfully submitted that, as mutually agreed between the parties, the balance amount of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) shall be paid by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 to Respondent No.2 upon closure/quashing of the present criminal proceedings, in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant has agreed to receive the aforesaid balance amount of ₹10,00,000/- in terms of the settlement and has agreed that, upon closure of the present criminal proceedings, the monetary settlement between the parties shall stand acted upon in terms of the settlement.” 10. Today, as per condition No.6 of the above compromise, respondent No.2/de-facto complainant has received Rs.10,00,000/- vide Demand Draft No.289955, dated 19.09.2026 drawn on IDFC First Bank, Manyata Embassy Tech Park, Bangalore and acknowledged the same by respondent No.2/de- facto complainant. She also expressed her willingness to quash the proceedings against all accused in C.C.No.C.C.No.1135 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. 11. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the nature of the offences, as no adverse antecedents or conduct was found against the accused, the parties on their free will and volition, willingly to put a quietus to all their disputes, which will advance peace and harmony among 11 the parties. More so, the cause of administration of the criminal justice system would remain unaffected. 12. As such, this Court is inclined to invoke its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the present lis, this Criminal Petition is allowed, and proceedings in C.C.No.1135 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, is hereby quashed. 13. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2026 and Criminal Petition No.8584 of 2026 are allowed. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 28.09.2026 krk 12 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 91 IA Nos.3 and 4 OF 2026 in/and Criminal Petition No: 8584 OF 2026 Date: 28.09.2026 Krk