Allowed¶39

Sk Chan Basha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Feb 2026CRLP/793/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, decided 03.02.2026 - CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 793/2026 with I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026: quash of proceedings in Crime No.135 of 2024 of Thottambedu Police Station (Ss.420, 467, 471 and 506 r/w 34 IPC) on the basis of compromise/joint memo between accused Nos.1-3 and the de-facto complainant; Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10)SCC 303 relied on; petition allowed, proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.135 of 2024 of Thottambedu Police Station, Srikalahasti Town, Tirupati District quashed; I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 allowed; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. ¶39

Sk Chan Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.135 of 2024 of Thottambedu Police Station, Srikalahasti Town, Tirupati District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 506 read with 34 IPC, ought to be quashed in view of the amicable settlement/compromise between the parties.

¶31

Court's answer

In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, and relying on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 seeking permission to record the compromise are allowed.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.135 of 2024 of Thottambedu Police Station, Srikalahasti Town, Tirupati District are quashed.

¶42

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the quashing, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶43
The Court recorded that the major offence alleged in Crime No.135 of 2024 is compoundable, supporting disposal on the basis of the compromise.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS filed by Accused Nos.1-3 seeking quash of proceedings in Crime No.135 of 2024 of Thottambedu Police Station, Srikalahasti Town, Tirupati District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 506 read with 34 IPC. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 sought permission to record a compromise between the parties. The petitioners and Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant appeared, produced attested Aadhar cards and were identified by counsel; a joint memo evidencing amicable settlement (arrived at with the intervention of family members, village elders and well-wishers) was filed and countersigned by counsel; the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reported no objection; the Court noted that the major offence alleged is compoundable. Relying on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10)SCC 303, the Court allowed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026, allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the proceedings against Accused Nos.1 to 3; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

¶1

APHC010053172026

¶2

[3521]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 in/and

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 793/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

SK CHAN BASHA, S/O S.K. ABDUL KHADER SAHEBAGED 64 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 16-54, PANAGALLU,DARGAMITTA, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN,SRIKALAHASTI MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH - 517644.

¶12

D MEERJAVALLI, S/O LATE CHAN BASHA,AGED 39 YEARS, D.NO. 16/11/D, DHARGAMITTAPANAGAL, SRIKALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH - 517644.

¶13

S SANDEEP, S/O SAJJA MALLIKARJUNAM,AGED 40 YEARS, D.NO. 16-871/5, GURUJI STREET,SRI RAMANAGAR COLONY, NEAR VIDYA JYOTHI SCHOOLSRIKALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH - 517644.

¶14

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos.1 to 3

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH - 522239.

¶17

KASARAM VENKATARAMAIAH, S/O LATE VENKATA SUBBAIAH,D.NO. 1-1067, KAILASAGIRI COLONYSRIKALAHASTI,

¶18

¶19

TIRUPATI DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH - 517644.

¶20

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶22

1.MADHU SUDHAN P

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶24

1.KOTHAPALLI KODANDAPANI

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026

¶28

in/and

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 793/2026

¶30

ORDER :

¶31

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.135 of 2024 of Thottambedu Police Station, Srikalahasti Town, Tirupati District registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’).

¶32

I.A.No.1 of 2026 is filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 seeking permission to record the compromise in Crime No.135 of 2024 of Thottambedu Police Station, Srikalahasti Town, Tirupati District against Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶33

I.A.No.2 of 2026 is filed by the Petitioner/De-facto complainant/Respondent No.2 seeking permission to record the compromise and consequently quash the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.135 of 2024 of Thottambedu Police Station, Srikalahasti Town, Tirupati District against Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶34

¶35

Today, when the matters were 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.

¶36

Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, reported no objection to record the compromise.

¶37

On perusal of the record, a joint memo has been filed by the Petitioners and Respondent No.2, countersigned by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Respondent No.2. It is stated therein that, with the intervention of family members, village elders, and well-wishers, the dispute has been amicably settled and that the parties intend to live peacefully without any further litigation. The major offence alleged is compoundable.

¶38

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 and 2 of 2026 are allowed.

¶39