APHC010041102026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.2 and 4 of 2026 In/And CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 708/2026 Between: 1. TALAM HARI VENKATA SAIRAM SANTOSH MANIKANTA, S/O RAMA MOHAN RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O SRIVARI HEIGHTS, FLAT NO.402, SRINIVASA NAGAR, J.N ROAD, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRIET. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CANADA, BEING REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER / FATHER - TALAM RAMA MOHANA RAO 2. TALAM TULASI SUBHASHINI,, W/O TALAM RAMA MOHANA RAO, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O SRIVARI HEIGHTS, FLAT NO.402, SRINIVASA NAGAR, OPP BAJAJ ELECTRICALS, J.N ROAD, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. TALAM RAMA MOHANA RAO,, S/O LATE VENKATA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O SRIVARI HEIGHTS, FLAT NO.402, SRINIVASA NAGAR, OPP BAJAJ ELECTRICALS, J.N ROAD, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. KAMANA SESHASRI SUPRIYA,, D/O TALAM RAMA MOHAN RAO, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O SRIVARI HEIGHTS, FLAT NO.402, SRINIVASA NAGAR, OPP BAJAJ ELECTRICALS, J.N ROAD, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. BHEEMANA BINDUSRI MEGHANA,, D/O. TALAM RAMA MOHANA RAO, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O SRIVARI HEIGHTS, FLAT NO.402, 2 SRINIVASA NAGAR, OPP BAJAJ ELECTRICALS, J.N ROAD, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT (PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HYDERABAD) ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. TALAM LAKSHMI PRASANNA KONDETI LAKSHMI PRASANNA, W/O TALAM HARI VENKATA SAIRAM SANTHOSH MANIKANTA, D/O. KONDETI SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 28 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.82-21-08/2, NANDITA ARCADE, M.A. KHAN MARG, A.V. APPARAO ROAD, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (for brevity the „BNSS‟) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1121 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Rajamahendravaram registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiay Nyaya 3 Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNS”) and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity „the D.P. Act‟). 2. 2. I.A.No.2 of 2026 is filed by the Petitioner/de-facto complainant/ Respondent No.1 seeking permission to compound the Respondent No.1/de- facto complainant to compromise the proceedings in C.C.No.1121 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Rajamahendravaram against Respondents/Accused Nos.2 to 6. 3. I.A.No.4 of 2026 is filed by the Petitioner/de-facto complainant/ Respondent No.1 seeking to record compromise between the Petitioner/de- facto complainant and the Respondents/Accused Nos.2 to 6 as per the joint memo and quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1121 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Rajamahendravaram. 4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 and Respondent No.1/de-facto complainant were present before this Court. They produced their respective attested copies of Aadhar cards in proof of their identity, and the same were placed on record for proper identification. Both the learned Counsel on record identified both the parties in open Court. 5. Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, reported no objection to record the compromise. 6. This Court enquired the de-facto complainant about her willingness to enter into a compromise in the matter. She represented before the Court that 4 she has voluntarily come forward for the compromise. The de-facto complainant further represented that the case may be closed against the accused persons, and she does not want to prosecute the matter against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5. 7. Considering the submissions and 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 the parties, in the interest of justice, I.A.Nos.2 and 4 of 2026 are allowed. 8. Consequently, Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.1121 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Rajamahendravaram are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO,J Date :24.03.2026 KMS 1 2012(10) SCC 303 5 KMS THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 708 of 2026 Date: 24.03.2026 KMS 59