1. This Criminal petition was filed under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for brevity, ‘B.N.S.S’) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.427 of 2025 on the file of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur, registered on 05.07.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 69, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘B.N.S’).

2. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed by the defacto complainant seeking to grant permission for compromise of the case in between the parties. I.A.No.3 of 2025 is filed to record the compromise between the petitioner and the respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner is aged about 23 years and the respondent No.2 is aged about 37 years. In I.A.No.3 of 2025, a joint memo has been filed and signed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 in the criminal petition. Respondent No.2 submits that there was no undue influence or pressure brought on her for compromising the case. It is mentioned that there was a consensual relationship between the two adults, which was private in nature. Due to certain personal misunderstandings, differences and a lack of proper communication between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner/accused, respondent No.2 had lodged the above complaint, as per the averments of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2.

4. Before registration of the complaint, the petitioner was already got married. Even before registration of the FIR, the respondent No.2 was already got married, and she and her erstwhile husband were living separately. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramawatar V. The State of Madhya Pradesh (AIRONLINE 2021 SC 927) observed that either the Supreme Court or High Court, as the case may be, after having due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant had willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.

5. Be that as it may, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul V. State of Maharashtra(MANU/SC/0787/2025) at para No.9, it is held as under:

                  “9...In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC”.

6. Considering the submissions and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab and another((2012) 10 SCC 303), since there is an amicable settlement between the parties, in the interest of justice, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 are allowed.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no further purpose would be served, if the criminal proceedings are pending on the file of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur, further, in view of the compromise affected in between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged offence are non-compoundable offences, hence, this Court by invoking the powers under section 528 of B.N.S.S., hereby quashes the proceedings in Cr.No.427 of 2025 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that in Cr.No.427 of 2025, after completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet before the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. In view of this, Cr.No.427 of 2025 is set aside; consequently, the charge sheet, if any, filed on the file of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, is also set aside.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

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