APHC010543152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 in/andCRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11039/2025 Between: DUDEKULA REHANA, W/O RAMANA. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O URBAN COLONY, CUMBUM TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O, MARKAPUR RURAL POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI 2. YERUVA SRIRAMULU, S/O ADAM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O BATTUVARIPALLI VILLAGE, KARAMPUDI MANDALAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: THANDAVA YOGESH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. TEKKALI DILLESWARA RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.11039 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: These two Interlocutory Applications and the Criminal Petition are heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.330 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur, in Crime No.168 of 2021 of Markapur Rural Police Station, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 363 and 365 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’). 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/respondent No.2/de-facto complainant seeking to record compromise between the petitioner/respondent No.2 and the respondent/accused No.1 as per the joint memo and quash the proceedings against the respondent/accused No.1 in C.C.No.330 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.11039 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 5. I.A.No.02 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/respondent No.2/de-facto complainant seeking permission to the petitioner/respondent No.2 to compromise the matter with respondent/accused No.1 and to compound the offences under Sections 363 and 365 read with 34 of ‘the IPC’,in C.C.No.330 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur. 6. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioner/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. Both the learned counsel on record identified both the parties in open Court 7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed allowing the two petitions filed seeking permission to compromise, record the compromise and compound the offences. 8. Indeed, coming to the merits of the Criminal Petition filed for quashment of proceedings, the offence is not in relation to two individuals alone. The kidnapping of a newborn baby from a Government Hospital is an offence against public law and order and the safety of vulnerable children. This Court cannot permit L.W.1/de-facto complainant to compromise or compound the offence. Since there is direct evidence 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.11039 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 against the petitioner/Accused No.1 showing that she, along with the other accused, was seen on CCTV while kidnapping the newborn baby of L.W.1. 9. In this regard, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the High Court Delhi in Rubina v. State (NCT of Delhi)1, wherein at paragraph Nos.26 & 27 it is held as under: 26. This Court is of the opinion that the offence of kidnapping and trafficking of children are serious offences, having an impact on the society at large as well as on the child's well-being and development. This Court though takes note of the parent's decision to reach a settlement, it cannot condone a practice that treats a minor girl as a tradable commodity. Such a notion goes against the principles of justice and the established legal framework designed to protect the rights and interests of children. In other words, such a settlement raises ethical and legal concerns as it involves a practice where a child is effectively being treated as a commodity, jeopardizing the child's well-being and contravening basic principles of law. 27. Moreover, the acceptance of such settlements could contribute to the perpetuation of a culture where the rights and dignity of children are subjugated to negotiation and compromise. This would set a precedent that contradicts the principles of justice and protection inherent in our legal system. Quashing criminal proceedings in such cases would send a message to society that the severity of crimes against children, even those involving kidnapping and trafficking, can be mitigated or overlooked through private agreements, thereby eroding the very foundation of the rule of law. 10. Thus, in Rubina supra it is held that kidnapping and trafficking of children are serious offences that affect both society and the child’s well- being, and they cannot be excused merely because the parents have reached a settlement. Treating a child as a negotiable commodity through private agreements is unethical, unlawful, and undermines the rule of law by weakening the protection guaranteed to children. The petitioner has to 12023 SCC OnLine Del 7703 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.11039 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 face the arduous exercise of trial. There are no merits in the alleged compromise effected between the petitioner and L.W.1, and the same cannot be recognized by this Court. Hence, there are no merits in this Criminal Petition. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main case itself, the Interlocutory Applications, i.e., I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2025, are dismissed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed with costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 12.02.2026 RSI 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.11039 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 47 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 in/and CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11039 of 2025 Date: 12.02.2026 RSI 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.11039 of 2025 Dated 12.02.2026 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No: Crl.P.No.11039 of 2025 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 03. 12.02.2026 Dr.YLR,J The Criminal Petition is dismissed. (Vide separate order). _________ Dr.YLR,J RSI