Allowed¶37

Gompa Nooka Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Apr 2026CRLP/3423/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing on out-of-court settlement/MOU; matrimonial dowry case; Sections 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Crime No.36 of 2020 Sarpavaram Police Station; C.C.No.329 of 2020 Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate Kakinada; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, 2012 (9) Scale 257 applied; de facto complainant verified voluntary compromise in open Court; offences compounded; chance of conviction bleak and remote; continuation abuse of process; petition allowed; proceedings against A1 to A4 quashed; miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.329 of 2020 (Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada) against petitioners/A1 to A4; miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition stand closed.

Gompa Nooka Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.329 of 2020 (offences under Sections 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act) against petitioners/A1 to A4 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the out-of-court settlement (MOU) and compromise between the parties.

¶18

Court's answer

The Court is satisfied with the identification of the parties and the voluntariness of the compromise; as the parties have entered into a compromise and compounded the offences, the chance of conviction is bleak and remote, and continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.329 of 2020 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, against the petitioners/A1 to A4 are quashed; miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition stand closed.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by accused A1 to A4 (Gompa Nooka Raju and Others) seeking quashal of C.C.No.329 of 2020 on the file of the Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, arising from Crime No.36 of 2020 of Sarpavaram Police Station for offences under Sections 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Parties had settled the dispute amicably and executed an MOU, and filed a memo seeking disposal. The 4th petitioner/A4 and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant were identified in open Court, and the de facto complainant confirmed she voluntarily entered into the compromise. Applying the framework set out in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, 2012 (9) Scale 257 (para 57), the Court held that since the offences stood compounded, the chance of conviction was bleak and remote and continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process of Court; accordingly the petition was allowed and the proceedings against A1 to A4 were quashed, with pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

APHC010225152022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA RADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3327]

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3423/2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gompa Nooka Raju and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶13

1.BALA KRISHNA MANDAPATI

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶15

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶16

2.KARUPOLU NARASIMHA RAO

¶17

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶18

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioners/A1 to A4, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.329 of 2020 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada (Crime No.36 of 2020 of Sarpavaram Police Station), registered for the

¶19

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3423 of 2022

¶20

¶21

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶22

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 and have entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In view of the settlement arrived between both the parties, they filed a memo seeking to dispose of the present criminal petition.

¶23

Today, when the matter is taken up, 4^th petitioner herein/A4 and 2^nd respondent/ de facto complainant are present before this Court. They produced their Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for 2^nd respondent have identified the parties in the open Court. This Court has questioned the de facto complainant with regard to compromise and she has categorically stated that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners/A1 to A4 herein.

¶24

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another,¹ the Hon’ble Apex court held thus: (para 57)

¶25

"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the

¶26

1 2012 (9) Scale 257

¶27

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3423 of 2022

¶28

¶29

Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences

¶30

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3423 of 2022

¶31

¶32

arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶33

This Court is satisfied with the identification of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. As the parties have entered into a compromise and compounded the offences, the chance of conviction is bleak and remote. Therefore, in view

¶34

SRK, J Crl.P.No.3423 of 2022

¶35

¶36

of the compromise between the parties, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

¶37

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.329 of 2020 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, against the petitioners herein/A1 to A4 are hereby quashed.

¶38