logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1576 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 7186 of 2023
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM
Parties : Gangula Govardhan Rao & Another Versus State of Andrha Pradesh & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Koti Reddy Idamakanti, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (AP), V.R. Maheswara Rao Paleti, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 20-08-2026
Head Note :-
Indian Penal Code - Section 376 -
Judgment :-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3 to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.25 of 2023 on the file of learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for SCs and STs (POA) Act Cases, Vijayawada.

2. Heard Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2.

3. Respondent No.2 filed petition along with joint compromise memo stating that they have settled the dispute out of the Court and sought for permission to compromise the matter by quashing the proceedings in SC No.25 of 2023 pending against petitioners/ accused Nos.2 and 3.

4. Petitioners and defacto complainant/ respondent No.2 are present. Heard respondent No.2 personally and she has submitted that she has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners as the main matter is settled out of Court. Further, she also filed similar petitions in Crl.P. No.3380 of 2026 filed by the main accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC along with provisions under SCs/STs (POA) Act.

5. As per the judgment of Apex Court in Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana & another (AIR 2008 SC 1968), Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another ((2011) 10 SCC 705), Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab ((2014) 6 SCC 466) and Anita Maria Dias and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr ((2018) 3 SCC 290), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that even in non- compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the Court can be saved and utilised in other material cases.

6. In the given facts and circumstances and having given peaceful consideration to the confirmation of the principles, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the compromise between both parties continuance of the prosecution in this matter is of no use will be a futile exercise which will serve no purpose. As such I am inclined to give permission to both parties to compromise the matter by allowing the I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2026.

7. In the result, this Criminal Petition is closed in terms of compromise memo.

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal