Allowed

Angati Sanyansamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Mar 2024CRLP/478/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought quashing of charge sheet in a caste-atrocity case after the parties compromised. The High Court verified the parties' identities and the voluntariness of the settlement, relied on Supreme Court precedents permitting quashing on compromise, and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet and proceedings in Sessions Case No.17 of 2021 against A1 to A5 quashed; IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 allowed.

Angati Sanyansamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Caste Atrocities | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AA/IARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH day of MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY four

¶2

present

¶3

the honourable SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶4

jA.NOS. 1 and 2 OF

¶5

IN/AND

¶6

QEIMNAL PETITIOM Mr.. 478 OF 2n99

¶7

Between:

¶8

T Angati Sanyansamma, W/o. Late Eswara Rao aged about 52 years.

¶9

Caste by Settibalija, R/o. D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar

¶10

Dondaparthy. Visakhapatnam. Road,

¶11

Gorrela Varalakshmi, W/o. Apparao aged about 36 years. Caste by

¶12

Settibalija, R/o. Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

¶13

3- Angati Aruna, D/o. Late Eswara Rao aged about 30 years. Caste by

¶14

Kspu, R/o. D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar

¶15

Visakhapatnam. Road, Dondaparthy,

¶16

Angati Sridevi @ Majji - Sridevi, W/o. Angi Kumarraj 0, aged about 30

¶17

years, Caste by Settibalija, R/o. D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar Road,

¶18

Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

¶19

5- Pilli Ramanarao @ Ramana, S/o. Late Yellaiah aged about 43

¶20

caste by Settibalija, R/o. years D.No.57-11-3/4

¶21

Visakhapatnam. Subhashnagar, Kanchaplem,

¶22

—Petitioner/Accused Nos. 1 to 5

¶23

¶24

AND

¶25

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its^{PublicProsecutor} High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶26

Pilli Ramadevi, W/o. P. Apparao, aged about 53 years, Caste by Konda Kapu, R/o. D.No.57-11-3/1, Subhashnagar, Kanchaplem, Visakhapatnam.

¶27

...Respondents

¶28

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in^{thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to Quash the Charge Sheet dated 11.06.2020^{inS.C.No.17of2021,} on the file of The Special Sessions Judge for Trial^{ofCasesUnderSCand} ST (POA) Act-cum-XI additional District Sessions Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.169/2017, under Sections 509, 506, 323 of IPC 3(1)(r)(s) and Sec.2 (v)(a) of SCs, STs (POA) Amendment^{Act,2015R/w.34} IPC, of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

¶29

LA. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶30

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in^{thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuance^to Charge Sheet dated 11.06.2020 in S.C.No.17 of 2021, on the file of The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC and ST (POA)^Act-cum-XI additional District Sessions Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.169/2017, under Sections 509, 506, 323 of IPC 3(1)(r)(s) and Sec.2 (v)(a) of SCs, STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 R/w 34 IPC, of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

¶31

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024

¶32

Pilli Ramadevi, W/o. P. Apparao, aged about 53 years, Caste by Konda Kapu, R/o. D.No.57-11-3/1 Subhashnagar, Kanchaplem, Visakhapatnam.

¶33

...Petitioner/Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶34

AND

¶35

Angati Sanyansamma, W/o. Late Eswara Rao, aged about^52years, Caste by Settibalija, R/o. D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

¶36

Gorrela Varalakshmi, W/o. Apparao, aged about 36 years. Caste by Settibalija, R/o. Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

¶37

Angati Aruna, D/o. Late Eswara Rao, aged about 30^{years.Casteby} Kapu R/o. D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

¶38

Angati Sridevi @ Majji Sridevi, W/o. Angi Kumarraju,^agedabout30 years. Caste by Settibalija, R/o. D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

¶39

Pilli Ramanarao @ Ramana, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged^{about43years,} caste by Settibalija, R/o. D.No.57-11-3/4, Subhashnagar,^Kanchaplem, Visakhapatnam

¶40

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its^{PublicProsecutor,} High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶41

...Respondents / Petitioners / Accused.

¶42

Petition under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the S.C.No.17 of 2021, dated

¶43

11.06.2020 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge^for Trial of Cases Under SC and ST POA Act cum XI additional District Sessions Judges Court Visakhapatnam.

¶44

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶45

Pilli Ramadevi, W/o. P. Apparao, aged about 53 years, Caste by Konda Kapu, R/o. D.No.57-11-3/1, Subhashnagar, Kanchaplem, Visakhapatnam.

¶46

...Petitioner/Respondent/ Defacto Complainant

¶47

AND

¶48

Angati Sanyansamma, W/o. Late Eswara Rao, aged about 52^years. Caste by Settibalija, R/o. D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

¶49

Gorrela Varalakshmi, W/o. Apparao, aged about 36 years. Caste by Settibalija, R/o. Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

¶50

Angati Aruna, D/o. Late Eswara Rao, aged about 30 years. Caste by Kapu, R/o. D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

¶51

Angati Sridevi @ Majji Sridevi, W/o. Angi Kumarraju, aged about 30 years. Caste by Settibalija, R/o. D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.

¶52

Pilli Ramanarao @ Ramana, S/o. Late Yellaiah, aged^{about43years,} caste by Settibalija, R/o. D.No.57-11-3/4, Subhashnagar,^Kanchaplem, Visakhapatnam

¶53

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its^{PublicProsecutor,} High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶54

...Respondents / Petitioners / Accused.

¶55

Petition under Section 320 (6) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.praying that in the circumstances stated, in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to compromise the case in S.C.No.17 of 2021, dated 11.06.2020 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial^{ofCasesUnderSCand} ST POA Act cum XI additional District Sessions Judges Court Visakhapatnam.

¶56

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T Janardhan Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{PublicProsecutoron} behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri. Petta Gnana Teja, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶57

The Court made the following:

¶58

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH I■ ■■ AMARAVATI

¶59

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶62

lA Nos.l and 2 of 2024

¶63

in/and

¶64

Criminal Petition No.478 of 2022

¶65

Between:

¶66

1.	Angati Sanyasamma, W/o. late Eswara Rao, 52 years, R/o.D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.
2.	Gorrela Varaiakshmi, W/o. Apparao, 36 years, R/o.Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.
3.	Angati Aruna, D/o. late Eswara Rao, 30 years, R/o.D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.
4.	Angati Sridevi @ Majji Sridevi, W/o. Angi Kumarraju, 30 years, R/o.D.No.46-10-5, Nehru Bazar Road, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam.
5.	Pilli Ramanarao @ Ramana, S/o. late Yellaiah, 43 Subhashnagar, R/o.D.No.57-11-3/4, years, Kanchapalem, Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 5
	And
1.	The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati.
2.	Pilli Ramadevi, W/o. P.Apparao, 53 years, R/o.D.No.57-11-3/1, Subhashnagar, Kanchapalem, Visakhapatnam. ... Respondents
	TheCourtmadethefollowing:

¶67

¶68

COMMON ORDER

¶69

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/Al to A5, to quash the charge sheet in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2021 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under the SCs & the STs (PoA)^Act-cum-XI Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam. A charge sheet has been filed as against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 509, 506, 323 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and Section 2 (v) (a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶70

Today, when the matter is taken up, petitioners herein/Al^toA5 and respondent herein are present before this Court. They produced their respective aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for 2"" respondent have identified both the parties in the open Court. This Court has questioned the de facto complainant/2'''^ respondent herein with regard to compromise and she categorically stated^tothatextent that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners herein/Al to A5. This Court is satisfied with the identification of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise.^Inviewofthe compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.

¶71

¶72

¶73

In a decision in Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi^&

¶74

another-^, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:

¶75

"12. No doubt that the learned ASG is right in relying^onvarious judgments of this Court which reiterate the legal position^thatin heinous and serious offences like murder or rape, the Court should not quash the proceedings. It will be relevant^toreferto paragraph 29.5 to 29.7 of the judgment of this Court^inthecase of Narender Singh v. State ofPunjatf, which read thus:

¶76

"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^andnot 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^IPCis 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 vitai/deiegate 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^basisof this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine^asto whether there is a strong possibility of conviction^orthe 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^wouldbe permissible for the High Court to accept the piea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also^be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

¶77

(2022) 8 Supreme 341

¶78

¶79

29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement piay a crucial roie. 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^tostart or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High^Courtcan show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably,^but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/materiai 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,^asin such cases the trial court would be in a position to^decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion^asto whether the offence under Section 307IPC 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 Section³⁰⁷ IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous^crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty ofsuch a crime."

¶80

It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly^heldthat 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^thereexists material for incorporation of such an offence or as^towhether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The Court^hasalsoto take Into consideration as to whether the settlement^betweenthe parties is going to result Into harmony between them^whichmay improve their mutual relationship. 14. The Court has further held that It Is also relevant^toconsider as to what Is stage of the proceedings. It has been^observedthat if an application is made at a belated stage wherein^theevidence has been led and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court should be slow to exercise the^powerto quash the proceedings. However, If such an application^ismade

¶81

¶82

¶83

at an initial stage before commencement of trial, the^saidfactor will weigh with the court in exercising its power.

¶84

The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the present case. Respondent No. 2 is a young iady of 23 years. She feels that going through trial in one^case,where she is a complainant and in the other case, wherein^sheisthe accused would rob the prime of her youth. She feels^{thatIf sheIs} made to face the trial rather than getting any relie,f^shewouldbe faced with agony of undergoing the trial.

¶85

In both the cases, though the charge sheets have been^filed, the charges are yet to be framed and as such, the trial^hasnot 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^criminai case to the already overburdened criminal courts.

¶86

In that view of the matter, we find that though^inaheinous or serious crime like rape, the Court should not normally^exercise the powers of quashing the proceedings, in the peculiar^factsand circumstances of the present case and in order to give^succorto Respondent No. 2 so that she is saved from further^agonyof facing two criminal trials, one as a victim and one^asanaccused, we find that this is a fit case wherein the extraordinary powers of this Court be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings."

¶87

¶88

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State^of

¶89

Maharashtra & another-^ wherein it was held thus:

¶90

"The appellant and respondent No.2 were undlsputedlyⁱⁿ a consensual relationship from 2009 to 2011 (or 2013^{as stated by} the respondent No. 2). It Is the say of the respondent^{No. 2that} the consensual physical relationship was on an assurance^of marriage by the appellant. The complaint has been filed^onlyin 2016 after three years, pursuant whereto FIR dated^16.12.2016 was registered under Section 376 and 420, IRC. On hearing learned counsel for parties, we find ex facie the registration^of FIR in the present case is abuse of the criminai process. The parties chose to have physical relationship without^marriagefor a considerable period of time. For some reason, the parties^fell apart. It can happen both before or after marriage. Thereafter

¶91

^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649

¶92

¶93

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 dose. 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^viewin (2019) 9 see 608 titled Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.^Stateof Maharashtra & Ann 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 eourt 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^abreach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently^not fulfilled. This was in the context of Section 375 Explanation² and Section 90 of the IPC, 1860. The Criminal appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside^andthe proceedings in pursuance to FIR dated 16.12.2016 stand quashed, leaving parties to bear their own costs."

¶94

¶95

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya

¶96

Pradesh^ the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the offence^under special statute including SC/ST Act, though the offence is against society, can also be quashed in exercise of power u/s^482Cr.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:-

¶97

TO. So far as the first question is concerned, it would^bead rem to outrightiy refer to the recent decision of this^Courtinthe case of Ramgopa! & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh'*, wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court^consisting of two of US (N. .V Ramana, OI & Surya Kant, J) was^confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under^Section320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription against the

¶98

^ 2021 see Online SC 966. '' Criminal Appeal No.l489 of 2012 decided 29‘^ September,^2021.

¶99

¶100

invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court^underArticle 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High^Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further heid that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers^underArticle 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case^maybe, after having given due regard to the nature of the^offenceand the fact that the victim/compiainant has willingly^enteredintoa settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise^of their respective constitutional/inherent powers. "

¶101

In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex^Courtand as the parties have entered into a compromise and compounded^the offences, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the case proceedingsⁱⁿ Sessions Case No. 17 of 2021 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under the SCs & the STs (PoA) Act-cum-XI^Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam filed for the offences punishable under Sections 509, 506, 323 IPC^andSection 3 (1) (r) (s) and Section 2 (v) (a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, against the petitioners herein/Al to A5, are hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.l and 2 of 2024 and Criminal Petition No.478 of 2022 are Allowed.

¶102

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶103

in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶104

//TRUE COPY//

¶105

SD/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT^I^EGISTRAR

¶106

SECTION OFFICER

¶107

To,

¶108

The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under^SCandSTPOA Act cum XI additional District Sessions Judges Court Visakhapatnam.

¶109

One CC to Sri. T Janardhan Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶110

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT] 4. Three CD Copies

sree

(along with joint memo enclosed in IA.No.1 of 2024)

¶115

»

HIGH COURT

DATED:27/03/2024

COMMON ORDER

IA.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 IN/AND Crl.P.No.478 of 2022

¶120

ALLOWING THE CRLP AND ALLOWING THE IA.NOS.1 & 2 OF 2024

¶121

May it please your lordship,

¶122

It is to submit^{thattheallegationofthecomplaintisthatI} am the second wife to the one Apparao, because, my husband younger brother, P. Ramana, S/o. Yelamma and my husband's family in various angles, and Sister A.Sanyasamma is harassing my making trout of the us since long time. And many times harassed and threatened to get out of the house. Most importantiy, because, to scold me like Kondaana, I belongs to a Tribe, they use Kondaraalu, Konda Lanja and scolded with most foul^languagethat we could not spell those we feel shy to tell and even the second wife to my unparliamentarily words. Because, I am husband, I did not make any complaint on any one. Myseif, with my life alone. My husband is husband with our children are living our working inin M.E.S. When my husband's Sister and my- husband s brother came to know that my^{husbandisgoingtoretirewithina} and my husband much more few days, they are harassing me directly and indirectly. In the year 2013 in September month, my husband's boy named Santosh. I have given a Report of the same at S^^own Police Station. But, later some days no one^hadtroubled

¶123

2016, they have started quarrelling us, by anyway. Again from me. scolding me on roads. birth to a baby boy. When, 2. On 24-2-2017, my daughter gave we are celebrating our grandson's naming ceremony, at our house, on our house and quarrelled.This on that day also they came working usually, my 17-04-2017, I, Ramadevi is month, on and her elder daughter husband's Sister named A. Sanyasamma second daughter A. Aruna, her daughter-inVaralakshmi and her to quarrel with me. At the same law has wantonly, wishfully came husband's Brother P.Ramana wo is staying behind our time, my by telling that kill and send them on me house is encourage , I will take care of you, Ramadevi, nothing will happened to you without any problem. her family has scolded me with foul 3. My husband's Sister and and sticks. All this was made and attacked me with stones language Brother P. Ramana. After up by standing behind by my husband's to the Police Station to husband is taking me knowing this issue my Sister phone called to some persons make complaint, my husband's only that they have attacked on us and called them to kill me. Not like Kondadaana and torn my by scolding me with foul language middle of the road. At that husband's clothes on the and my had stopped them and saved us from instance, people in our street video recorded by my daughter who is at them. All this issue was with her and her sister Sanyasamma top of my house.P. Ramana

¶124

»•

¶125

with unparliamentary

¶126

family

¶127

scolded me and my

¶128

family has tried to kill us.

¶129

language, annoyed us, complaint before he

¶130

1. It is submitted that I have given a Under SC and ST POA

¶131

lodge for Trial of Cases

¶132

Special Sessions Judges Court Visakhapatnam,

¶133

ActcumXI additional^ District Sessions herein (Accused No, 1 to 5 ) and police

¶134

against the petitioners dated 11 06 2020 against

¶135

FIR vide S C No 17 of 7021

¶136

registered a Under Sec. 354

¶137

Offences Punishable

¶138

herein for

¶139

the petitioners SC ST POA Act 2015

¶140

,506 IPC,3(l)(r)(s),3(2)(Va)

¶141

(B),323,509 of the well wishers and

¶142

1. I submit that the the inten/entlon amicably out of the

¶143

settled the matter

¶144

elders of the both parties forward to withdraw

¶145

court. That due to^{thesaidreasons,I} came Affidavit stating that

¶146

am also executed an

¶147

the complaint for which 1 withdraw the above said case.

¶148

lam ready to is settled out of the court, I

¶149

1. It is submitted that the matter is .c considering against the petitioners

¶150

am ready to withdraw the case be pleased to

¶151

this Hon’ble Court may

¶152

all the above circumstances in S C NO 17 of 2021, dated 11 06 2020 on

¶153

quash the proceedings in Trial of Cases Under SC

¶154

the file of he Special Sessions Judge for Judges Court

¶155

additional District Sessions

¶156

and ST POA ActcumXI S and their family members

¶157

otherwise the petitioner

¶158

Visakhapatnam, will suffer irreparable loss.

¶159

be pleased

¶160

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may the S C No 17 of

¶161

t and quash

¶162

to record the compromise statement

¶163

2021, dated 11 06 2020 on the file of he Special Sessions Judge fo: Trial of Cases Under SC and ST POA ActcumXI additional District Sessions Judges Court Visakhapatnam, in theinterest of justice and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the

¶164

circumstances of the case.

¶165

Hence, this Joint Memo.

¶166

AMARAVATI " ,C'c' DATE: r-4 Petitioner No.l ■jp-: m ■h •1 Petitioner No.2

¶167

(\ G) oo

¶168

Petitioner No.3

¶169

r\ Petitioner No.4