APHC010103332026 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 In/And CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1639/2026 Between: 1. SRI RAMA VENKATA GOPI,, S/O SRIRAMA VENKATA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCCUPATION SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT, IMD BEGUMPET R/O QUARTER NO.M-25, MET QUARTERS, AIRPORT COLONY, BEGUMPET AIRPORT, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA, 50016 2. SRI RAMA VENKATA GANESH, S/O SRIRAMA VENKATA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. OCCUPATION ASSISTANT ENGINEER, APTIDCO, R/O H.NO.3- 100, RAITHUPETA DOWN, NANDIGAMA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521185 3. SRIRAMA VENKATA KRISHNAIAH, S/O GOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, R/O H.NO.3-100, RAITHUPETA DOWN NANDIGAMA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -521185 4. SRIRAMA SAROJINI, W/O VENKATA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O H.NO.3-100, RAITHUPETA DOWN, NANDIGAMA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-521185 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR, 2 KOTHAPET POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE VICTIM GIRL, XXXX ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. MALLAVELLI NAGA SAI LALITH KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity the ‘BNSS’) by the Petitioners/AccusedNos.1, 3, 4 and 5, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Cr.No.6 of 2026 on the file of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 49of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS.,’), read with Sections 5(m), 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity ‘the POCSO Act’). 2. I.A.No.2 of 2026 are filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 seeking permission to permit the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 to compromise the matter with Respondents/Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 inCr.No.6 of 2026 on the file of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District. 3. I.A.No.3of 2026is filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 seeking to record compromise and compound the offence between the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 and the Respondent/Accused as per the joint 3 memo and quash the proceedings against the Respondent/Accused in Cr.No.6 of 2026 on the file of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District. 4. As per joint memo, the Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant was coerced by her parents and the police into lodging the complaint and giving a video statement on 10.1.2026 under physical assault and threats, which can be verified through the CCTV footage of the police station on that date; subsequently, before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate on 17.01.2026, she clarified that the complaint was forced, that she developed interest in the Petitioner No.1 only after attaining majority, and that no physical relationship existed prior thereto; thereafter, the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 were married on 19.01.2026 at Sri SatyammaAmmavari Temple, Amberpeta, Nandigama, and are living together happily; hence, continuation of the FIR would cause undue prejudice to their married life; the compromise petition has been entered into voluntarily, without coercion. 5. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2/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. The learned counsel on record identified both the parties in open Court. 6. The Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 got married after elopement. Petitioner No.1 had earlier filed a writ of Habeas Corpus before the Division Bench of this Court, and by order dated 16.12.2025 in W.P. No.335733 of 4 2025, the Habeas Corpus Petition was ordered to be withdrawn. The Petitioners also filed W.P. No.34837 of 2025, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 15.12.2025 with certain observations. Subsequently, W.P. No.2046 of 2026 was filed by Petitioner No.1 and the de- facto complainant. By order dated 03.02.2026, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Investigating Officer to take proper steps to ensure the protection of the life and limb of Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2. 7. It is further noted that Petitioner No.1 on earlier occasion got a first marriage, and blessed with four children. That marriage was dissolved by mutual consent through a decree of divorce dated 15.10.2025 in H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam. 8. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that there is no objection to recording the compromise. 9. In view of Petitioner No.1 and LW.2 got married and living together as husband and wife, no purpose would be served in continuing the case in Cr.No.6 of 2026 on the file of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District. 10. This Court enquired the Respondent No.2/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 Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant represented that the case may be closed against the accused and she does not want to prosecute the matter. 5 11. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court inK.Kirubakaran v. State of T.N.,1 wherein, at paragraph Nos.9, 11 and 12, it is held as under: “9. Per the law made by the legislature, the appellant having been found guilty of a heinous offence, the proceedings in the present case on the basis of a compromise between the appellant and his wife cannot be quashed. But ignoring the cry of the appellant's wife for compassion and empathy will not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the most serious offenders of law do receive justice moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy is necessary. The appellant and the victim are not only legally married, they are also in their family way. While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. The victim of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender. Continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant's incarceration would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself. 11. Accordingly, resting on the foregoing considerations, the developments subsequent to the trial, and in the interest of rendering complete justice, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant including the conviction and sentence. Ordered accordingly. 12. Also, bearing in mind the interests of the appellant's wife and child, we deem it appropriate to subject the appellant to the specific condition of not deserting his wife and child and also to maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity. If, in future, there be any default on the appellant's part and the same is brought to the notice of this Court by his wife or their child or the complainant, the consequences may not be too palatable for the appellant.” 12. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramawatar v. State of M.P2held that the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or this Court under 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ in order to do complete justice in appropriate cases having due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant willing entered into a settlement/compromise can 12025 SCC OnLine SC 2307 2(2022) 13 SCC 635 6 quash the proceedings in respective of their constitutional/inherent powers by relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa3. 13. 13. Considering the submissions and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Kirubakaran (supra), since there is an amicable settlement between the parties, in the interest of justice, I.A.Nos.2&3 of 2026 are allowed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the case against the accused in Cr.No.6 of 2026 on the file of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur District, is hereby quashed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 02.03.2026 PRA 3(1999) 5 SCC 238 7 165 HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.2 & 3 In/And CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1639/2026 Date: 02.03.2026 PRA