APHC010090952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3239] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1408/2026 Between: 1. KOLLA BABY DURGA PRASAD, S/O.SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 28YEARS, MALE, MATTAPARRU VILLAGE PODURU MANDAL,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. KOLLA LAKSHMI KUMARI, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 48YEARS. FEMALE,MATTAPARRU VILLAGE PODURU MANDAL,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. KOLLA PAVAN KUMAR, ,S/O.SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 26 YEARS,MALE, MATTAPARRU VILLAGE PODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARIDISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. KOLLA PAVANI ALIAS DEEPATI PAVANI, D/O. SRINU, AGE 25 YRS, HINDU FEMALE,PEDDAPETAL H/O. LANKALAKODERU VILLAGE, PALAKOL MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet in SC SPL No. 128/202 against the Petitioners/1 to A3 pending on the file of the VIII Addl. District And Session Judge-cum special Court for Trail of SC/ST (POA) Act cases, West Godavari District, Eluru 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 2 pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of SC SPL No.128/2022, dated on the file of VIII Addl. District And Session Judge-cum special Court for Trail of SC/ST (POA) Act cases. West Godavari District, Eluru before this Hon’ble Court and pass 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 pleased to grant permission to the de-facto complainant/ L.W-1 to enter into compromise with the Accused Nos.1 to 3 in SC SPL No. 128/2022 for getting compound the offences punishable sections 498-A, 323, R/w 34 I.P.C, section 3 & 4 of DP Act 1961 & Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST POA Act 2015 (Amendment Act 2015), pending on the file of VIII Addl. District And Session Judge- cum special Court for Trail of SC/ST (POA) Act cases. West Godavari District, Eluru, in the interest of justice. IA NO: 3 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 pleased to record the compromise between the de-facto complainant/L.W-1 and Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in SC SPL No.128/2022, on the file of VIII Addl. District And Session Judge- cum special Court for Trail of SC/ST (POA) Act cases, West Godavari District, Eluru in the interest of justice and pass 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in SC SPL No. 128/2022 on the file of the VIII Addl. District And Session Judge- cum special Court for Trail of SC/ST (POA) Act cases, West Godavari District, Eluru including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition in the interest of the justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. PECHATHY RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 APHC010619332023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3239] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2910/2024 Between: 1. VENDRA LAKSHMI DURGA, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, 38 YEARS, C/SETTI BALIJA, SEELAMVARI PALEM, H/O. VALLURU VILLAGE, ACHANTA MANDAL, NOW AT APPI CHERUVU PENUMADAM VILLAGE, PODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT A4 2. GUTHULA MADHU KUMAR,, S/O. BHASKARA RAO, 36 YEARS, C/SETTI BALIJA, SEELAMVARI PALEM,PODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT A5 3. GUTHULA MEENA SATYA GANGA BHAVANI @ MEENA, W/O. MADHU KUMAR, 32 YEARS, C/ SETTI BALIJA APPI CHERUVU, PENUMADAM VILLAGE, PODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. A6 4. PALA VEERA LAKSHMI,, W/O JANAKI NARAYANA RAO, 30 YEARS, C/O SETTI BALIJA SRUNGAVRUKSHAM VILLAGE, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DEEPATI PAVANI, D/O. SRINU, AGE 25 YRS, HINDU FEMALE, HOUSE WIFE, PEDDAPETAL H/O. LANKALAKODERU VILLAGE, PALAKOL MANDAL, N.J.C.J.C. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 4 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 Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet in SC SPL No. 128/2022 against the Petitioners/A4 to A7 pending on the file of the VIII Addl. District And Session Judge-cum special Court for Trail of SC/ST (POA) Act cases, West Godavari District, Eluru and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to condone the delay of 121 days in resubmitting the above CRLP SR No. 12443/2023 in the interest of justice and to pass necessary order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in SC SPL No. 128/2022 on the file of the VIII Addl. District And Session Judge- cum special Court for Trail of SC/ST (POA) Act cases. West Godavari District, Eluru including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition in the interest of the justice and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. PECHATHY RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. MEDAPATI VENKATA RAMA REDDY 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY IA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2026 in/and Criminal Petition No: 1408 OF 2026 And Criminal Petition No.2910 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No.1408 of 2027, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/A1 to A3, to quash the proceedings in SC SPL No.128 of 2022 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge- cum-Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, West Godavari, Eluru. Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 7 in the very same case filed Criminal Petition No.2910 of 2024 seeking quash of proceedings against them. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners herein/Accused, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State are present before this Court. All the petitioners/Accused except Accused No.5 is present before this Court. The complainant and accused produced their respective Aadhaar cards in proof of their identity. Learned 6 counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for 2nd respondent identified their respective parties in the open Court. 3. This Court questioned the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with regard to compromise, and she categorically stated to the extent that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners herein/Accused and there is no threat, coercion or undue influence in arriving at the compromise. This Court is satisfied with the identification of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. In view of the compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another,1 held at paragraph No.57, as under: "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 1 2012 (9) Scale 257 7 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 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.” 5. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and as the parties have entered into a compromise, and compounded the offences, these Criminal Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in SC SPL No.128 of 2022 on the file of the 8 learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, West Godavari, Eluru are hereby quashed. 6. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2026 in/and Criminal Petition No.1408 of 2026 and Criminal Petition No.2910 of 2024 are allowed. As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in these Criminal Petitions shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY Dated: 26.02.2026 PSA 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY IA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2026 in/and Criminal Petition No: 1408 OF 2026 And Criminal Petition No.2910 of 2024 Date: 26.02.2026 PSA