APHC010094062026 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: 1503/2026 Between: 1. CHINTHAPARTHY GURUNATH, S/O. VENKATRAMANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC AUTO DRIVER, R/O.KOTAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O.CHINTAPARTHY, VAYALPADU MANDAL, ANNAYAMMA DISTRICT-517 299. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATHI. 2. SMT KUNCHU BHARATHI, W/O. K. BHARGAV, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.BOYAPALLY VILLAGE, H/O.CHINTAPARTHY, VAYALPADU MANDAL, ANNAYAMMA DISTRICT-517 299. ...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 pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.263/2025 on the file 2 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpadu in the interest of justice. 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 Charge Sheet in C.C.No.263/2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpadu for time being in the interest of justice. 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 permit the parties to compound the offences in C.C.No.263/2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpadu 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 to record the terms of compromise between the parties in C.C.No.263/2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpadu in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B SARVOTHAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. P NAGENDRA REDDY 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY IA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2026 in/and Criminal Petition No: 1503 OF 2026 COMMON ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/Accused, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.263 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpadu, Annamayya District registered for the offence punishable under Sections 78 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner herein/Accused, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State are present before this Court. The complainant and accused produced their respective Aadhaar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 4 compromise with the petitioner 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 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 1 2012 (9) Scale 257 5 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, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.263 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpadu, Annamayya District are hereby quashed. 6. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 and Criminal Petition No.1503 of 2026 are allowed. 6 As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY Dated: 26.02.2026 PSA 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY IA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2026 in/and Criminal Petition No: 1503 OF 2026 Date: 26.02.2026 PSA