Puttaparthi Tirumala Aditya & Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi & Ors.

B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J

Initially, this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1 to 5, to quash the First Information Report in Cr.No.135 of 2024 of Mahila Police Station, Rajahmundry, and subsequently filed I.A.No.5/2025 for amendment of prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.126/2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-IV Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, for the offence U/sec.85 r/w.3(5) of BNS, 2023 and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners, I.A.No.5/2025 is ordered.

Heard Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for petitioners/A-1 to A-5 and Smt.A.R.Kumari, learned counsel representing for the unofficial respondent No.2 (defacto-complainant). Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and concerned police present.

Today, when the matter is taken up, petitioners herein/A-2, to A-5 and 2nd respondent herein are present before this Court. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the petitioner / A-1 is now currently residing in United States of America and sought permission for attendance of the petitioner/A-1 through V.C. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners, the petitioner/A-1 is permitted to appear through V.C. Accordingly, the petitioner/Accused No.1 appeared through V.C. and he is identified by the learned counsel for petitioners and the defacto-complainant. The petitioners/A-2 to A-5 and 2nd respondent produced their respective Aadhaar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent and police have identified both the parties in the open Court.

This Court has questioned 2nd respondent herein/de facto complainant with regard to compromise, and she categorically stated to that extent that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1 to 5. 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.

In the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another 2012 (9) Scale 257, on quashing of criminal case, when the parties entered into settlement and compromise, the Criminal Petition is allowed and therefore, the case proceedings in C.C.No.126 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-IV Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, for the offence U/sec.85 r/w.3(5) of BNS, 2023 and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1 to 5 is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2, 3 & 5 of 2025 and Criminal Petition No.619 of 2025 are allowed.

As a sequel thereto, Interlacutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.