APHC010578922025 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 & 2 In/And CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11302/2025 Between: 1.VANKALA DURGA PRASAD, S/O. LATE VENU,AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.33-11-27,BALABHASKAR NAGAR, MOGHALRAJPURAM,VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O, V. MADUGULA P.S.,ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT REP. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATAMARAVATI FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2.MOTHER OF THE VICTIM, S ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.RAVI KIRAN ARUKUTLA 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (for brevity the ‘BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.115 of 2025 (Crime No.245/2023 of V.Madugula Police Station) on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’), and Sections 11 read with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity ‘the POCSO Act’). 2. I.A.Nos.1 of 2026 are filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 seeking permission to permit the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 to compromise the matter with Respondent/Accused and to compound the offences under Sections 363 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 11 read with 12 of ‘the POCSO Act’, in S.C.No.115 of 2025 (Crime No.245/2023 of V.Madugula Police Station) on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Visakhapatnam. 3. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is 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 memo and quash the proceedings against the Respondent/Accused in S.C.No.115 of 2025 (Crime No.245/2023 of V.Madugula Police Station) on the 3 file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Visakhapatnam. 4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Petitioner/Accused and Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant and L.W.2 was 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. 5. Respondent No.2/mother of the victim and L.W.2/victim are present. The mother of the victim, the victim, submit that Petitioner married L.W.2 and they are living together and they were blessed with a child aged about 19 months. 6. Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that there is no objection to recording the compromise. 7. In view of Petitioner and LW.2 living together as husband and wife, no purpose would be served in continuing the criminal case on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Visakhapatnam, in S.C.No.115 of 2025. 8. This Court enquired the Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant and LW.2/victim 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 No.2/de-facto complainant and LW.2/victim 4 further represented that the case may be closed against the accused and they do not want to prosecute the matter. 9. 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 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.” 10. 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 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307 2(2022) 13 SCC 635 5 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. 11. 11. 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 & 2 of 2026 are allowed. 12. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the case against the accused in S.C.No.115 of 2025 (Crime No.245/2023 of V.Madugula Police Station) on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Visakhapatnam, is hereby quashed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 12.02.2026 VTS 3(1999) 5 SCC 238