Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Byreddy Shabari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 July, 2025
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010329432025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
IA NOs.2 OF 2025 AND 3 OF 2025
IN/AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6787/2025
Between:
1. BYREDDY SHABARI, D/O. BYREDDY RAJASEKHAR
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O.PATHAMUCHUMARRI VILLAGE, PAGIDYALA
MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT REP BY HER GPA
HOLDER YERRAM ARUNA REDDY S/O.YERRAM
VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/0.H.N0.5-5-7/29/1B, DEVI NAGAR, ROAD NO.4,
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH AMARAVATHI.
2. ROKKAM RAMBABU, (IN CHARGE SHEET THE NAME IS
MENTIONED AS ROKKU ROKKU RAMBABU
S/O.ROKKAM VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, R/O.PATHAMUCHUMARRI VILLAGE,
PAGIDYALA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
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
may be pleased to quash the proceedings in SC.No.39/2023 on
the file of the Judge, Special Court for SC and ST (POA) Act-
cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool in
the interest of justice.
2
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the charge sheet in
SC.No.39/2023 on the file of the Judge, Special Court for SC &
ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge
Court, Kurnool for time being period in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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
permit the parties to compound the offence in SC.No.39/2023 on
the file of Judge, Special Court for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool in the
interest of justice.
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
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
record the compromise between the parties in SC.No.39/2023 on
the file of the Judge, Special Court for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool in the
interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. SAZID KALLUR
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
3
COMMON ORDER
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/Accused No.1, to quash the
proceedings in Sessions Case No.39 of 2023 pending on the file
of the Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases filed under the SCs
& the STs (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions
Judge Court, Kurnool for the offences punishable under Sections
147, 323, 353, 447, 506 read with 149 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r), 3
(1) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (PoA) Act, 1989 pertaining to Crime No.40 of 2021 of
Muchumarri Police Station.
2. A case in Crime No.40 of 2021 of Muchumarri Police
Station was registered against accused Nos.1 to 16 for the
aforesaid offences and after completion of investigation,
L.W17/Y.Sruthi, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur, Nandyal
District filed charge sheet and it was numbered as Sessions Case
No.39 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Judge, Special
Court for Trial of cases filed under the SCs & the STs (PoA) Act-
cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool.
3. While the case is pending, the petitioner/accused
No.1 filed the present Criminal Petition, praying the Court to
quash the proceedings in the aforesaid Sessions Case.
4
4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is
represented that both the parties have settled the dispute
amicably, out of the Court, at the intervention of their elders and
well-wishers. In view of the settlement arrived at, between the
parties, respondent No.2/de facto complainant and petitioner
herein/A1 filed I.A.Nos.2 of 2025 and 3 of 2025 seeking to permit
the parties to compound the offence and to record the
compromise.
5. Petitioner/A1 and respondent No.2/de facto
complainant are present. They produced their respective aadhar
cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioner/
A1 and learned counsel for 2nd respondent/de facto complainant
identified both the parties in the open Court. This Court has
questioned the respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant with
regard to compromise and he categorically stated he voluntarily
entered into compromise with petitioner/A1 only, in terms of
compromise memo. 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.
5
6. In a decision in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of
Delhi & another1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:
“12. No doubt that the learned ASG is right in relying on
various judgments of this Court which reiterate the legal
position that in heinous and serious offences like murder or
rape, the Court should not quash the proceedings. It will be
relevant to refer to paragraph 29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of
this Court in the case of Narender Singh v. State of Punjab 1,
which read thus:
“29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore
are to be generally treated as crime against the society
and not against the individual alone. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision merely because there
is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would be open
to the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake
of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the
charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it
would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of
injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the
vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons
used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered
by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On
the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court
can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility
of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote
and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept
the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings
whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for
the High Court to accept the plea compounding the
offence based on complete settlement between the
parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by
1
(2022) 8 Supreme 341
6the fact that the settlement between the parties is going
to result in harmony between them which may improve
their future relationship.
29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power
under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of
settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the
settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged
commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in
accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason
that at this stage the investigation is still on and even
the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is
yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the
High Court can show benevolence in exercising its
powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of
the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the
other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost
complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the
matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High
Court should refrain from exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial
court would be in a position to decide the case finally
on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the
offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.
Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is
already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at
the appellate stage before the High Court, mere
compromise between the parties would not be a
ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the
offender who has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC
and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime
and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict
found guilty of such a crime.”
13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that
though the Court should be slow in quashing the
proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are
involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from examining as
to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an
offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if
proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence
charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration
as to whether the settlement between the parties is going to
7
result into harmony between them which may improve their
mutual relationship.
14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to
consider as to what is stage of the proceedings. It has been
observed that if an application is made at a belated stage
wherein the evidence has been led and the matter is at the
stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to
exercise the power to quash the proceedings. However, if
such an application is made at an initial stage before
commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the
court in exercising its power.
15. The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are
peculiar in the present case. Respondent No. 2 is a young
lady of 23 years. She feels that going through trial in one
case, where she is a complainant and in the other case,
wherein she is the accused would rob the prime of her
youth. She feels that if she is made to face the trial rather
than getting any relief, she would be faced with agony of
undergoing the trial.
16. In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been
filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial
has not yet commenced. It is further to be noted that since
the respondent No. 2 herself is not supporting the
prosecution case, even if the criminal trial is permitted to go
ahead, it will end in nothing else than an acquittal. If the
request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only
adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened
criminal courts.
17. In that view of the matter, we find that though in a
heinous or serious crime like rape, the Court should not
normally exercise the powers of quashing the proceedings,
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case
and in order to give succor to Respondent No. 2 so that she
is saved from further agony of facing two criminal trials, one
as a victim and one as an accused, we find that this is a fit
case wherein the extraordinary powers of this Court be
exercised to quash the criminal proceedings.”
8
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mandar Deepak Pawar v.
State of Maharashtra & another2, wherein it was held thus:
“The appellant and respondent No.2 were undisputedly in a
consensual relationship from 2009 to 2011 (or 2013 as
stated by the respondent No.2). It is the say of the
respondent No.2 that the consensual physical relationship
was on an assurance of marriage by the appellant. The
complaint has been filed only in 2016 after three years,
pursuant whereto FIR dated 16.12.2016 was registered
under Section 376 and 420, IPC. On hearing learned
counsel for parties, we find ex facie the registration of FIR
in the present case is abuse of the criminal process. The
parties chose to have physical relationship without
marriage for a considerable period of time. For some
reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or
after marriage. Thereafter also three years passed when
respondent No.2 decided to register a FIR. The facts are
so glaring as set out aforesaid by us that we have no
hesitation in quashing the FIR dated 16.12.2016 and
bringing the proceedings to a close. Permitting further
proceedings under the FIR would amount to harassment to
the appellant through the criminal process itself. We are
fortified to adopt this course of action by the judicial view in
(2019) 9 SCC 608 titled Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. wherein the factual scenario
where complainant was aware that there existed obstacles
in marrying the accused and still continued to engage in
sexual relations, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR. A
distinction was made between a false promise to marriage
which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be
broken and a breach of promise which is made in good
faith but subsequently not fulfilled. This was in the context
of Section 375 Explanation 2 and Section 90 of the IPC,
1860. The Criminal appeal is accordingly allowed.
Impugned judgment is set aside and the proceedings in
pursuance to FIR dated 16.12.2016 stand quashed,
leaving parties to bear their own costs.”
8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramawatar Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh3 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the
2
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649
9
offence under special statute including SC/ST Act, though the
offence is against society, can also be quashed in exercise of
power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in certain cases on the basis of
compromise, but this power should be exercised during pendency
of trial or appeal not thereafter. Paragraph-10 of the above
Judgment is quoted as below:-
“10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad
rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the
case of Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh4,
wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us
(N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an
identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been
clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C
cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of
inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section
482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising
the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482
Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court
or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due
regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the
victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/
compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their
respective constitutional/inherent powers.”
9. In view of the aforesaid decisions 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 Sessions Case No.39 of 2023 pending on
the file of the learned Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases filed
under the SCs & the STs (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and
3
2021 SCC Online SC 966.
4 th
Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided 29 September, 2021.
10
Sessions Judge Court, Kurnool, against the petitioner/A1 only,
are hereby quashed.
10. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 of 2025, 3 of 2025 and
Criminal Petition No.6787 of 2025 are allowed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_ ______________________
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
2nd July, 2025.
DNB