Gavara Janaki Ram Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

GAVARA JANAKI RAM, S/O SIMHADRI, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 9-8-104, MARUTHI NAGAR, 0PP. VIMAL SHOW ROOM, GAJUVAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶13

GAVARA GANGA RATNAM, (A3),, W/O. SIMHADRI, AGED 78 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 9-8-104, MARUTHI NAGAR, 0PP. VIMAL SHOW ROOM, GAJUVAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶14

GAVARA LALITHA KUMARI (A4),, W/O G. MOHANA ESWARA RAO, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 9-8-104, MARUTHI NAGAR, 0PP. VIMAL SHOW ROOM, GAJUVAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶15

GAVARA MOHAN (A5),, S/O. SIMHADRI, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 9-8-104, MARUTHI NAGAR, 0PP. VIMAL SHOW ROOM, GAJUVAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BELLAKONDA KRISHNAVENI (A6),, W/O. BELLAKONDA NOOKARAJU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 65-4-9/10, PILAKAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, SRI HARAIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶17

BELLAKONDA NOOKARAJU (A7),, S/O. RAMULU, AGED 61 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 65-4-9/10, PILAKAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, SRI HARAIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶18

GAVARA LAKSHMAN (A8),, S/O. SIMHADRI, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. MARUTHI NAGAR, PATHA GAJUVAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶19

BELLAKONDA TARUN SAI (A9),, S/O. NUKARAJU, AGED 20 YEARS, R/O. PILAKAVANIPALEM, GAJUVAKA, VISHAKAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶20

BELLAKONDA VARAHALU (A10), S/O. RAMALAYYA, AGED 53

¶21

2

¶22

YEARS, R/O. PILAKAVANIPALEM, GAJUVAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶23

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶24

AND

¶25

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI. THROUGH THE SHO, WOMEN POLICE STATION WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶26

GAVARA HEMALATHA, W/O. JANAKI RAM, AGED 38 YEARS. RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 9-8-104, MARUTHI NAGAR, OLD GAJUVAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAMDISTRICT.

¶27

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶29

1.ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶31

1.PATHI SIVA PRASAD

¶32

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

¶33

COMMON ORDER:

¶34

The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 to 10, seeking quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.83 of 2019 of Women Police Station, West Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354(a), 354(c), 342 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 7 read with 8, 9(n), read with 10 of the POCSO Act.

¶35

2. I.A.Nos.2 to 4 of 2025 are filed by Respondent No.2/Complainant seeking permission to compound the offences alleged against the petitioners, to compromise the matter and to record the compromise in Crime No.83 of 2019 of Women Police Station, West Godavari District.

¶36

3

¶37

3. Petitioners / Accused Nos.1, 4 to 6 and Respondent No.2 appeared before this Court and were identified by their respective learned counsel. Accused Nos.3, 8, 9 and 10 are absent. Copies of their Aadhar cards attested by their respective counsel are filed for proper identification.

¶38

4. Today, when the matter is called, Respondent No.2 appeared before the Court and clearly stated that she had lodged the present case due to disputes between the couple. However, she further represented that they have been residing together happily for the past three years and that she does not wish to pursue the case any further. The daughter of the respondent No.2, who is currently pursuing her first year of intermediate education, also appeared before the Court and reiterated her mother’s statement, confirming that they have been living happily with her parents for the past three years. She further stated that no criminal case is required to be continued against her father and, hence the case may be closed.

¶39

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition by exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS.

¶40

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court

¶41

may pass appropriate orders.

¶42

7. Considering the submissions and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another¹ ,

¶43

1 2012(10)SCC 303

¶44

4

¶45

since there is an amicable settlement between the parties, I.A.Nos.2 to 4 of 2025 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 to 10 in Crime No.83 of 2019 of Women Police Station, West Godavari District.

¶46

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

¶47

stand closed.

¶48

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶49

Date:28.07.2025 Asr

¶50

5

¶51

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA