APHC010091702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2026 In/And CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1438/2026 Between: 1.PAYASAM SARATH CHANDRA REDDY, S/O GOPALA REDDY,AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.50-40-3/1,T.P.T. COLONY, NEAR BHARDWAJ HOSPITAL,SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 013 2.PAYASAM PARVATHI, W/O GOPAL REDDY,AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.50-40-3/1,T.P.T. COLONY, NEAR BHARDWAJ HOSPITAL,SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 013 3.PAYASAM GOPAL REDDY, , S/O RANGA REDDYAGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.50-40-3/1T.P.T. COLONY, NEAR BHARDWAJ HOSPITAL,SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 013 4.PAYASAM RAVALI, W/O K.RAJESH KUMAR,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/OB007, BRINDA RESIDENCY,OPPOSITE PLAY MANIA, DODDAMMA DEVI TEMPLE ROAD,BELLANDUR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MAHILA POLICE STATION, ANANTAPURAM,REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI 2 2.PAYASAM VANGALA SWETHA, W/O. SARATH CHANDRA REDD,AGED 31 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 1-2- 539,SHANTHINAGAR, GOURAV GARDEN, ANANTHAPURAM-515 001 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.P NAGENDRA REDDY The Court made the following: 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 4, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1059 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuram. 2. I.A.No.2 of 2026 is filed by the Petitioner/de-facto complainant/Respondent No.2 seeking permission to permit the Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant to compromise the proceedings in C.C.No.1059 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuram against Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 4. 3. I.A.No.3 of 2026 is filed by the Petitioner/de-facto complainant/ Respondent No.2 seeking to record compromise between the Petitioner/de- facto complainant and the Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 4 and quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1059 of 2024 on the file of the learned 3 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuram. A joint memo was duly signed by the parties and countersigned by their respective learned counsel is filed. 4. As per the joint memo, it is submitted that, at the instance of elders and well‑wishers, the parties have amicably compromised the matter. The Petitioners and Respondent No.2 have agreed to settle the disputes pending before the civil and criminal courts. The Petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- towards payment of alimony to Respondent No.2 on the day of final hearing before the concerned Family Court, which amount has already been paid. Respondent No.2 has agreed for grant of divorce in H.M.O.P.No.2023 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Family Judge, Visakhapatnam. Both parties have further agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other, and have come to the conclusion to settle the present crime registered on the file of the Mahila Police Station, Anantapuram. 5. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, certain accused persons were present before the Court in person, while others participated through online mode. The de‑facto complainant/Respondent No.2 was also present. 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. 6. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, reported no objection to record the compromise. 4 7. This Court enquired the de-facto complainant about her willingness to enter into a compromise in the matter. She represented before the Court that 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 as Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4. 8. The High Court of Allahabad, in Mukesh Bansal v. State of U.P1 at paragraph Nos.48 and 49, held as under: “48. Thus assesing the totality of the circumstances, object and the allegation of misuse of this piece of legislation in a shape of Section 498A IPC, the Court is proposing the safeguards after taking the guidace from the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (Supra) keeping in view the growing tendency in the masses to nail the husband and all family members by a general and sweeping allegations. 49. Thus, It is directed that:— (i) No arrest or police action to nab the named accused persons shall be made after lodging of the FIR or complaints without concluding the “Cooling-Period” which is two months from the lodging of the FIR or the complaint. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter would be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committe(hereinafter referred to as FWC) in the each district. (ii) Only those cases which would be transmitted to FWC in which Section 498-A IPC along with, no injury 307 and other sections of the IPC in which the imprisonment is less than 10 years. (iii) After lodging of the complaint or the FIR, no action should take place without concluding the “Cooling-Period” of two months. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter may be referred to Family Welfare Committee in each districts. (iv) Every district shall have at least one or more FWC (depending upon the geographical size and population of that district constituted under the District Legal Aid Services Authority) comprising of at least THREE MEMBERS. Its constitution and function shall be reviewed periodically by the District & Sessions Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court of that District, who shall be the Chairperson or Co-chairperson of that district at Legal Service Authority. (v) The said FWC shall comprise of the following members:— 12022 SCC OnLine All 395 5 (a) a young mediator from the Mediation Centre of the district or young advocate having the practices up to five years or senior most student of Vth year, Government Law College or the State University or N.L.Us. having good academic track record and who is public spirited young man, OR; (b) well acclaimed and recognized social worker of that district having clean antecedant, OR; (c) retired judicial officers residing in or nearby district, who can devote time for the object of the proceeding OR; (d) educated wives of senior judicial or administrative officers of the district. (vi) The member of the FWC shall never be called as a witness. (vii) Every complaint or application under Section 498A IPC and other allied sections mentioned above, be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committee by the concerned Magistrate. After receiving the said complaint or FIR, the Committee shall summon the contesting parties along with their four senior elderly persons to have personal interaction and would try to settle down the issue/misgivings between them within a period of two months from its lodging. The contesting parties are obliged to appear before the Committee with their four elderly persons (maximum) to have a serious deliberation between them with the aid of members of the Committee. (viii) The Committee after having proper deliberations, would prepare a vivid report and would refer to the concerned Magistrate/police authorties to whom such complaints are being lodged after expiry of two months by inserting all factual aspects and their opinion in the matter. (ix) Continue deliberation before the Committee, the police officers shall themselves to avoid any arrest or any coercive action pursuant to the applications or complaint against the named accused persons. However, the Investigating Officer shall continue to have a peripheral investigation into the matter namely preparing a medical report, injury report, the statements of witnesses. (x) The said report given by the Committee shall be under the consideration of I.O. or the Magistrate on its own merit and thereafter suitable action should be taken by them as per the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure after expiry of the “Cooling-Period” of two months. (xi) Legal Services Aid Committee shall impart such basic training as may be considered necessary to the members of Family Welfare Committee from time to time(not more than one week). (xii) Since, this is noble work to cure abrasions in the society where tempos of the contesting parties are very high that they would melow down the heat between them and try to resolve the misgivings and misunderstanding between them. Since, this is a job for public at large, social work, they are acting on a pro bono basis or basic minimum honorarium as fixed by the District & Sessions Judge of every district. (xiii) The investigation of such FIRs or complaint containing Section 498A IPC and other allied sections as mentioned above, shall be 6 investigated by dynamic Investigating Officers whose integrity is certified after specialized training not less than one week to handle and investigate such matrimonal cases with utmost sincerity and transparency. (xiv) When settlement is reached between the parties, it would be open for the District & Sessions Judge and other senior judicial officers nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal2, at paragraph No.26 held as under: “26. The transfer petitions and special leave petitions are disposed of in terms of the above order. The guidelines framed by the High Court of Allahabad in the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 2022 vide paras 32 to 38, with regard to ‘Constitution of Family Welfare Committees for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A, IPC shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities.” 10. Considering the submissions and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another3, since there is an amicable settlement between the parties, in the interest of justice, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 are allowed. 11. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1059 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuram is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO,J Date : 02.03.2026 PRA HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO 22025 SCC OnLine SC 1494 3 2012(10) SCC 303 7 I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2026 In/And CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1438/2026 Date :02.03.2026 PRA