APHC010364972026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5900 OF 2026 Between: 1. B Dastagiri, S/o. Boya Chinna Mukanna,aged 42 years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.No. 16-348-1, Sunnambatti Street, YemmiganurTown and Mandal, Kurnool District.- 518360. 2. Bollavaram Aravind, S/o aged about 27 years, R/o 1/18, Chinna Mariveedu Village, Gonegandia Mandal, Kurnool District - 518463. 3. B Narasimhulu, S/o Bannuru Sommanna, aged about 42 years, R/o D.No.3-190,P. Kotakonda Village, Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District - 518225. 4. Boya Chaitanya, W/o Narasimhulu, aged about 36 years, R/o D.No.3-190, P. Kotakonda Village, Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District - 518225 ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravati. 2 2. Vamsi Krishna Kategari, S/o Kategari Lakshmi Narayan, aged 22 years. Business,R/o H. No. 90/3-7-a, Behind Post Office Lane,Balaji Nagar, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. ...Respondents 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 FIR No.104 of 2026 of Kurnool II town Police station against the petitioners/ A1 to A4, to meet the ends 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 stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners Nos. 1 to (A1 to A4) in FIR No. 104 of 2026 of Kurnool II Town Police Station, Kurnool District, pending disposal of this Criminal Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: A SUDHAVARSHINI Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM IA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2026 in/and Criminal Petition No:5900 OF 2026 COMMON ORDER: Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A1 to A5), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1769 of 2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1908 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. 2. Pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 20.07.2026, Registrar (Judicial) submit a Report dated 20.07.2026, wherein it is stated that the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for 2nd respondent identified their parties before him and the parties have produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. It is further submitted that when the Registrar (Judicial) 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 petitioners herein and there is no threat, coercion or undue influence in arriving at the compromise. 3. Report dated 20.07.2026 of the Registrar (Judicial) is made part of the record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State. 4. On a perusal of the Report dated 20.07.2026, 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. 6. 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 1 2012 (9) Scale 257 5 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 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.” 6 7. 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.1769 of 2024 on the file of learned IV Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 and Criminal Petition No.5900 of 2026 are allowed. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 27.07.2026 PSA 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM IA Nos.2 and 3 OF 2026 in/and Criminal Petition No:5900 OF 2026 Date: 27.07.2026 PSA