Bangari Satyavani, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Bangari Satyavani, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition No.5003 of 2024 allowed; I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 allowed; proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in FIR No.539 of 2023 (Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District) quashed; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in FIR No.539 of 2023 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for offences under Sections 341 and 509 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, can be quashed against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in view of the compromise between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

Since there is an amicable settlement between the parties and the de-facto complainant does not wish to prosecute, and in the light of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed in the interest of justice.

Ratio / Principle

Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in FIR No.539 of 2023 on the file of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District are quashed.

Key takeaways

Without expressing any view, the question of recovery of the compensation amount paid to Respondent No.2 is left open to the Government to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.obiter¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing on compromise — FIR No.539 of 2023, Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, under Sections 341 and 509 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act — Criminal Petition No.5003 of 2024 under Section 528 BNSS by Accused Nos.1 to 3; I.A.Nos.1–3 of 2025 by the de-facto complainant (Respondent No.2) to record compromise and compound offences — parties identified in open Court; de-facto complainant voluntarily declined to prosecute — relying on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, I.A.Nos.1–3 of 2025 allowed and FIR proceedings quashed — question of recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- Government compensation paid to the complainant expressly left open to the Government.

[3521]

APHC010307062024

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

THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025

In/And

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5003/2024

Between:

BANGARI SATYAVANI,, W/O BANGARI RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O D.NO.37-3-39/3, GAJAPATI NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

VASUREDDY GIRI BABU,, S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O D.NO.56-26-3, GOLLA KANCHARAPALEM, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

SANKA VENKATA SUDHEER,, S/O V.SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O 38-19-18, MARRIPALEM, JYOTHI NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.

KUNCHANGI DURGA, W/O SRIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O D.NO.36-91-145/1, NALANDANAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

2

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5003 of 2024 Dated 09.04.2026

1.KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.TINNAVALLI VENKATA MANOJ

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNSS”) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.539 of 2023 on the file of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341 and 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “IPC”), and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity, “SC/ST (PoA) Act”).

I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 are filed by the Petitioner/de-facto complainant/Respondent No.2 seeking to record the compromise entered into between the de-facto complainant and the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in respect of FIR No.539 of 2023 on the file of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.

I.A. No.3 of 2025 is filed by the Petitioner/de-facto complainant/Respondent No.2 seeking permission to compound the offences and to record the compromise between the parties, as per the joint memo, and

3

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5003 of 2024 Dated 09.04.2026

consequently to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in FIR No.539 of 2023 on the file of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant were present before this Court. They produced their respective attested copies of Aadhar cards in proof of their identity, and the same were placed on record for proper identification. Both the learned Counsel on record identified both the parties in open Court.

Sri A. Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that, pursuant to the registration of a complaint at the behest of Respondent No.2 against the Petitioners, the Government has paid compensation in different instalments, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to Respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 submits that she is unable to repay the said amount to the Government. When queried by this Court, Respondent No.2 represented the same.

Without expressing any view on this aspect, it is left open to the Government to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law with regard to recovery of the said amount from Respondent No.2.

This Court enquired the de-facto complainant about her willingness to enter into a compromise in the matter. She represented before the Court that

4

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5003 of 2024 Dated 09.04.2026

she has voluntarily come forward for the compromise. The de-facto complainant further represented that the case may be closed against the accused persons, and she does not want to prosecute the matter against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3.

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 , since there is an amicable settlement between the parties, in the interest of justice, I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed.

Consequently, Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in FIR.No.539 of 2023 on the file of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam District are hereby quashed.

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

closed.

__________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO,J

Date :09.04.2026 KMS

1 2012(10) SCC 303

5

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.5003 of 2024 Dated 09.04.2026

KMS

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 5003 of 2024

Date: 09.04.2026

KMS