Kanchi Srinivasa Rao v. Bokka Mangayamma

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2025CRLP/1039/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise — Section 482 Cr.P.C. — offences under Sections 406, 465, 468, 420 read with 34 IPC — voluntary settlement between accused and de facto complainant affirmed in open Court — Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another (2012 (9) Scale 257) relied on — C.C.No.19 of 2020, Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Court, Kakinada — Criminal Petition No.1039 of 2025 allowed, proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.1039 of 2025 and I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Court, Kakinada, quashed; pending interlocutory applications closed. ¶¶30

Kanchi Srinivasa Rao Vs Bokka Mangayamma — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020 (offences under Sections 406, 465, 468, 420 read with 34 IPC) pending before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Court, Kakinada, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the compromise between the parties.

¶¶24

Court's answer

The Court was satisfied with the identification of the parties and the voluntariness of the compromise, and held that in view of the compromise between the parties the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

Relying on the Apex Court judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another (2012 (9) Scale 257), that a criminal case may be quashed where the parties have entered into settlement and compromise, the Court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Court, Kakinada.

¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused (A1) seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Court, Kakinada, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 420 read with 34 IPC. The de facto complainant (respondent No.1) categorically stated in open Court that she had voluntarily entered into compromise with the accused, without threat, coercion or undue influence; the parties were identified in open Court. Holding that, in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction were remote and bleak, and acting in the light of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another (2012 (9) Scale 257) on quashing of criminal cases upon settlement, the High Court quashed the proceedings and allowed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 and Criminal Petition No.1039 of 2025.

¶1

APHC010048492025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3368]

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1039/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kanchi Srinivasa Rao

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

Bokka Mangayamma and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶15

ANGADA SATYA RAGHAVENDRA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

JITHENDRA P

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶22

IA Nos.1 and 2 OF 2025 in/and Criminal Petition No:1039 OF 2025

¶23

C O M M O N O R D E R:

¶24

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein/A1, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Court Kakinada, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 420 read with 34 IPC.

¶25

Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner herein/Accused, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/de facto complainant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State are present before this Court. The complainant and accused produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 identified their parties in the open Court. The concerned police officer is present before this Court and identified the parties.

¶26

This Court questioned the respondent No.1/ de facto complainant with regard to compromise, and she categorically stated to the extent that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner

¶27

¶28

herein/Accused and there is no threat, coercion or undue influence in arriving at the compromise. 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.

¶29

In the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another¹ , on quashing of criminal case, when the parties entered into settlement and compromise, the Criminal Petition is allowed and therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Court Kakinada, is hereby quashed.

¶30