APHC010537622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10810/2025 Between: 1. SALA NAGANNA, S/O YESU, AGE 20 YEARS, MALE, STUDENT, R/O PATHAKALUVA CENTRE, MOGALTURU VILLAGE, MOGALTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. SALA YESU (A2),, S/O MANDULAYYA, AGE 44 YEARS, MALE, BUSINESS, R/O PATHAKALUVA CENTRE, MOGALTURU VILLAGE, MOGALTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. SALA LAKSHMI @ PALL LAKSHMI (A3),, W/O YESU, AGE 40 YEARS, FEMALE, WORKER, R/O PATHAKALUVA CENTRE, MOGALTURU VILLAGE, MOGALTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, NOW AT MUSCAT (SULTANATE OF OMAN) REP BY HER SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SALA YESU (A2) 4. SHAIK AMEER BHASHA (A4),, S/O SHAIK SAIDHA, AGE 22 YEARS, MALE, STUDENT, R/O DOOR NO. 5-6/1-38, KUMARI STREET, KL RAO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2. XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX VICTIM, (VICTIM) 3. XXXXXXXX MOTHER OF VICTIM, (DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT) 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10810 of 2025 Dated 31.01.2026 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): KOTHA NAGA SURYA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. NAGA RAJU KOLLATI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10810 of 2025 Dated 31.01.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.1 to 5 of 2025 in/and CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10810/2025 COMMON ORDER: These five interlocutory applications and the Criminal Petition are heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (for brevity the ‘BNSS’) by the petitioners/accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.60 of 2025 (Crime No.181/2024 of Mogalthuru Police Station) on the file of the learned Special Court for the Trail of POCSO Act Cases at Bhimavaram, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 344, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’), 376 (2)(n), 118, 354-C of ‘the IPC’, Section 67 of IT Act and Sections 5(1) read with 6, 11 read with 12 and 16 read with 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. 3. An application has been filed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking permission to permit the Special Power of Attorney holder, namely Sala Yesu (A2), husband of the petitioner, to represent the petitioner/Accused No.3, Sala Lakshmi, who is residing in Muscat, and the same is allowed. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10810 of 2025 Dated 31.01.2026 4. An application has been filed in I.A.No.3 of 2025 seeking to dispense with the presence of petitioner No.3, who has been residing in Muscat, and the said petition is also allowed. 5. I.A.Nos.1 of 2025 are filed by the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking permission to permit the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 to compromise the matter with respondents/accused and to compound the offences under Sections 363, 344, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’), 376 (2)(n), 118, 354-C of ‘the IPC’, Section 67 of IT Act and Sections 5(1) read with 6, 11 read with 12 and 16 read with 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, in S.C.No.60 of 2025 (Crime No.181/2024 of Mogalthuru Police Station) on the file of the learned Special Court for the Trail of POCSO Act Cases at Bhimavaram. 6. I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2025 are filed by the petitioners/ respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking to record compromise and compound the offence between the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the respondents/accused as per the joint memo and quash the proceedings against the respondents/accused in S.C.No.60 of 2025 (Crime No.181/2024 of Mogalthuru Police Station) on the file of the learned Special Court for the Trail of POCSO Act Cases at Bhimavaram. 7. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and respondent Nos.2 and 3/de-facto 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10810 of 2025 Dated 31.01.2026 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. 8. Respondent No.2/victim and respondent No.3/mother of the victim are present. The mother of the victim, the victim, and the respondents submit that petitioner No.1 married respondent No.2 and they are living together. The marriage was performed on 15.05.2025 after respondent No.2 attained majority. The petitioner No.1 is aged about 20 years. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are students. Respondent No.2 is now carrying eighth month pregnancy. 9. Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that at the time of the alleged offence respondent No.2 was a minor, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have married and respondent No.2 is now carrying pregnancy. A joint memo is filed. It is further submitted that there is no objection to recording the compromise. 10. In view of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 living together as wife and husband, and respondent No.2 now carrying eighth month pregnancy, no purpose would be served in continuing the criminal case on the file of the learned Special Court, Bhimavaram, in S.C. No.60 of 2025. 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10810 of 2025 Dated 31.01.2026 11. This Court enquired the respondent Nos.2 and 3/de-facto complainant about their willingness to enter into a compromise in the matter. They represented before the Court that they have voluntarily come forward for the compromise. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 further represented that the case may be closed against the accused persons and they do not want to prosecute the matter. 12. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. 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 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10810 of 2025 Dated 31.01.2026 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. 13. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramawatar v. State of M.P2 held 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 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. 14. 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.1 to 5 are allowed. 15. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the case against the accused persons in S.C.No.60 of 2025 (Crime No.181/2024 of 2(2022) 13 SCC 635 3(1999) 5 SCC 238 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10810 of 2025 Dated 31.01.2026 Mogalthuru Police Station) on the file of the learned Special Court for the Trail of POCSO Act Cases at Bhimavaram, is hereby quashed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 31.01.2026 RSI 9 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.10810 of 2025 Dated 31.01.2026 68 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.1 to 5 of 2025 in/and CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10810/2025 Date: 31.01.2026 RSI