Allowed

Udumula Durgareddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2024CRLP/6253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings in FIR No. 177 of 2024 filed under Section 364-A IPC upon a voluntary compromise entered between the de-facto complainant and the accused petitioners. The Court found the settlement voluntary and the chances of conviction remote.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings in Crime No. 177 of 2024; allowed I.A. Nos. 2, 3, and Criminal Petition No. 6253 of 2024.

Udumula Durgareddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER Tvi/O THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT iU' THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI ^

¶4

iU'

¶5

I.A. Nos. 2 AND 3 OF 2024 IN/AND rPiMlNAL PETITION NO: 6253 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Udumula Durgareddy, S/o. Sreenivasula Reddy, aged^{about30Years,} R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District

¶8

Nakka Venkateswarlu, S/o. Pedda Venkateswarlu aged abo/fJS Years, R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District

¶9

3 Shalk Moulall, S/o. Shalk Jamal Valli, aged about²⁷ Years, R/o. Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶10

Sreeram Nagar

¶11

4 Burgala Syed Basha, S/o. Pakkiraiah, aged about 27^Years, R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam^District

¶12

Royyala Ramakrishna, S/o. Nagaraju, aged about 25 Years, R/o. Racherla Gate, Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶13

Pandinlla Uday, S/o. Sekhar, aged about 21 Years,^{R/o.LICOffice,} Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶14

Shaik Nayab, S/o. Shabeer Basha, aged about 19 Years, R/o. Racharla Village, Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶15

Rajarapu Ravi Teja, S/o. Ranganayakulu, aged about 24 Years, R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District

¶16

Vadia Ramanjaneylu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about^23Years,R/o. LIC Office, Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District R/o.

¶17

Aagol Vijay Kumar, S/o. Ramanaiah, aged about 30 Years, Near Prohibition Station, Giddalur Town and Mandal,^{PrakasamDistrict}

¶18

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 to 10

¶19

AND

¶20

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, through YSR (Kadapa) District High Court of

¶21

Mydukur U/G Police Station Andhra Pradesh.

¶22

Avireni Sreenivasulu, S/o. Bala Venkataiah, aged about 50 Years, R/o. G.VSathram Village, N/o. Gangayapalli Village, Mydukur Mandal YSR (Kadapa) District

¶23

- - / '■ .r

¶24

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶25

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS old under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to call for the records in F.I.R.No. 177 of 2024, 02.06.2024 on the file of Mydukur U/G Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District.

¶26

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶27

Between:

¶28

Avireni Sreenivasulu, S/o. Bala Venkataiah, aged about 50 Years, R/o. G.V Sathram Village, N/o. Gangayapalli Village, Mydukur Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District. ^ ’

¶29

...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT

¶30

AND

¶31

Udumula Durgareddy, S/o. Sreenivasula Reddy, aged about 30 Years, R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District

¶32

Nakka Venkateswarlu, S/o. Pedda Venkateswarlu, aged about 28 Years, R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District

¶33

Shaik Moulali, S/o. Shaik Jamal Valli, aged about 27 Years, R/o. Sreeram Nagar, Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶34

Burgala Syed Basha, S/o. Pakkiraiah, aged about 27 Years R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District

¶35

Royyala Ramakrishna, S/o. Nagaraju, aged about 25 Years, R/o. Racherla Gate, Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶36

Pandinlla Uday, S/o. Sekhar, aged about 21 Years, R/o. LIC Office Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶37

Shaik Nayab, S/o. Shabeer Basha, aged about 19 Years, R/o. Racharla Village, Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶38

Rajarapu Ravi Teja, S/o. Ranganayakulu, aged about 24 Years, R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District

¶39

Vadia Ramanjaneylu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about^23Years,R/o. Lie Office, Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶40

Aagol Vijay Kumar, S/o. Ramanaiah, aged about 30 Years,^R/o. Near Prohibition Station, Giddalur Town and Mandal,^{PrakasamDistrict}

¶41

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, through Mydukur U/G Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED

¶43

Petition under Section 320 (6) 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 permit the petitioner^to compound^the offence and to quash the F.I.R.No. 177 of 2024, 02.06.2024^onthefileof Mydukur U/G Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District,^for the alleged offences u/s. 364-A r/w 34 of I PC.

¶44

I.A. NO: 3 OF 2024

¶45

Between:

¶46

Avireni Sreenivasulu, S/o. Bala Venkataiah, aged about^{50Years,R/o.G.V} Sathram Village, N/o. Gangayapalli Village, Mydukur^Mandal, YSR^(Kadapa) District.

¶47

...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT

¶48

AND

¶49

Udumula Durgareddy, S/o. Sreenivasula Reddy, aged^{about30Years,} R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam^District

¶50

Nakka Venkateswarlu, S/o. Pedda Venkateswarlu, aged about 28 Years, R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District

¶51

Shaik Moulali, S/o. Shaik Jamal Valli, aged about 27 Years, R/o. Sreeram Nagar, Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶52

Burgala Syed Basha, S/o. Pakkiraiah, aged about 27 Years, R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam^District

¶53

Royyala Ramakrishna, S/o. Nagaraju, aged about 25 Years, R/o. Racherla Gate, Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶54

Pandinlla Uday, S/o. Sekhar, aged about 21 Years,^{R/o.LICOffice,} GiddalurTown and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶55

Shaik Nayab, S/o. Shabeer Basha, aged about 19 Years,^R/o.Racharla Village, GiddalurTown and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶56

Rajarapu Ravi Teja, S/o. Ranganayakulu, aged about^24Years,R/o. J.Pullala Cheruvu Village, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam^District

¶57

Vadia Ramanjaneylu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about^23Years,R/o. LIC Office, Giddalur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶58

Aagol Vijay Kumar, S/o. Ramanaiah, aged about 30 Years,^R/o. Near Prohibition Station, GiddalurTown and Mandal,^{PrakasamDistrict}

¶59

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, through Mydukur U/G Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶60

...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED

¶61

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 record the compromise and quash the F.I.R.No. 177 of 2024, 02.06.2024 on the file of Mydukur U/G^{PoliceStation,} YSR (Kadapa) District, for the alleged offences u/s.^{364-Ar/w34ofIPC.} I.A. NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS old under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum^ofGroundsof Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner in F.I.R.No. 177 of 2024, 02.06.2024 on the file of Mydukur U/G Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition^{otherwisethePetitioners} would be subjected to irreparable loss and injury.

¶62

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kalepu Yashwanth, Advocate for the Petitioner/Accused 1 to 10 and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate for the Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant.

¶63

The Court made the following ORDER :

¶64

j''

¶65

APHC010388302024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368]

¶66

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶67

PRESENT

¶68

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶69

CRIMINAL PFTITION NO: 6253/2074

¶70

Between:

¶71

Udumula Durgareddy and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶72

AND

¶73

The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

¶74

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶75

KALEPU YASHWANTH

¶76

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶77

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶78

2.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL

¶79

The Court made the following:

¶80

COMMON ORDER-

¶81

jA Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 in/and Criminal Petition Nq:6253 of 2C)9d

¶82

This Criminal Petition,' under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023) has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1 to 10 to quash the proceedings

¶83

¶84

in Crime No.177 of 2024 of Mydukur (U/G) Police Station,^YSR Kadapa District.

¶85

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing for the unofficial respondent No.2 (defactocomplainant) and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State present.

¶86

Today, when the matter is taken up, petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1 to 10 and 2'''^ 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.

¶87

This Court has questioned 2'’'^ respondent herein/c/e^facto complainant with regard to compromise, and he categorically stated to that extent that he has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1 to 10. 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.

¶88

¶89

¶90

In the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another\ on quashing of criminal case, when the parties entered into settlement and compromise, the Criminal Petition is allowed and therefore, the case proceedings in Crime No. 177 of²⁰²⁴ of Mydukur (U/G) Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, against the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.1 to 10 is hereby quashed.

¶91

Accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 and Criminal Petition No.6253 of 2024 are allowed.

¶92

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶93

1 2012(9) Scale 257

¶94

SD/- K.J.RAJABABU 1 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Station House Officer, Mydukur U/G Police Station YSR (Kadapa) District.

¶99

One CC to SRI. KALEPU YASHWANTH Advocate [OPUC]

¶100

One CC to SRI. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Advocate [OPUC]

¶101

Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT]

¶102

THREE CD COPIES

¶103

TAC

¶104

(Along with Joint Compromise Memo to the addresses)

¶105

HIGH COURT DATED:13/09/2024

¶106

ORDER I.A. Nos. 2 AND 3 OF 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO; 6253 OF 2024

¶107

AN OH
m
i j 2 MAR 2C:5 C9
, Current Section ^

¶108

I.A. Nos. 2 AND 3 OF 2024 In/AND CRIMINAL PETITION ARE ALLOWED

¶109

¶110

.rniNT MEMO

¶111

filed seeking for above criminal petition has been 1. That the the file of of 2024, 02.06.2024 on of the F.I.R.No. 177 quashment , which was registered Mydukur U/G Police Station, YSR (Kadapa) District registered against the herein. The said crime^was against the petitioners r/w 34 of IPC. That presently my younger petitioner under section 364-A ia Country and working son Avireni Santosh has Been residing in Georgia is filed against is-understandings, the present case there. Due to some mis .. son Avireni Santosh and elder the petitioners/Accused’s and my younger ive consent to quash the son Avireni Siva have no objection to give against the petitioners/Accused’s herem. proceedings

¶112

and defcato complainant through the 2. That the petitioner and the defacto complainant intervention of well-wishers, the petitioners amity and good relations, have reconciled their differences to preserve well-wishers and elders, the petitioners That at the intervention of the and the defacto complainant have compromised the case and the defacto which was lodged by intends to withdraw the case complainant herein 364-A r/w 34 of IPC. herein under section him against the petitioner 1 O A O' X O- •V X ^[L \

¶113

That the defacto complainant is with a free will and^{consentisintended} to withdraw this case, without any coercion and undue^influence.

¶114

That at the intervention of elders and well-wishers the petitioners and the deafcto complainant compromised and settled^thematterand there are no disputes among themselves. This Honhle Court in the interest of justice and on equity, exercising its power^{undertheinherent} jurisdiction, may be pleased to quash the complaint^{tostoptheabuseof} process of law and to meet the ends of justice.

¶115

That in view of compromise being entered between the defacto complainant and the petitioners and as both the parties^{aresatisfiedand} the defacto complainant agreed to with draw the case^{filedbythedefacto} complainant, this Hon hie Court in the interest of^{justiceandonequity,} exercising its power under the inherent jurisdiction,^{maybepleasedto} quash the complaint to stop the abuse of process of^{lawandtomeetthe} ends of justice.

¶116

Dated : 02.08.2024 X U- o X 5 |< (rC^" (I - mCCKf - ^ If/U

^ /
V

Defacto Complainant;

Petitioner;

u p ^3^ 1 Udumula Durgareddy

¶121

Avireni Sreenivasulu