Peethani Veera Venkata Surya Chandra Rama Prasada Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

1.PEETHANI VEERA VENKATA SURYA CHANDRA RAMA PRASADA RAO, S/O.SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC. ONGC DEPARTMENT, R/O. D.NO. 3-1118, HUKUMPET, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, RAMA KRISHNA NAGAR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

2.BADAMPUDI VENKATA SUBBARAO SHARMA, S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED 64 YEARS, OCCIBUSINESS, PALANGI, UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, W.G.DT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶17

1.M PHANI KUMAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶19

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

2.T LAKSHMI PADMAJA

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

2

¶23

COMMON ORDER:

¶24

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (for brevity the ‘BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.373 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned Special Magistrate Court, Tanuku.

¶25

I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed by the Petitioner/de-facto complainant/ Respondent No.2 seeking permission to permit the Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant to compromise the proceedings in C.C.No.373 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned Special Magistrate Court, Tanuku against Respondent No.2/Accused Nos.1 to 5.

¶26

I.A.No.3 of 2026 is filed by the Petitioner/de-facto complainant/ Respondent No.2 seeking to record compromise between the Petitioner/defacto complainant and the Respondent No.2/Accused as per the joint memo and quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.373 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned Special Magistrate Court, Tanuku.

¶27

Today, when the matters were taken up for hearing, the Petitioner/Accused 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.

¶28

3

¶29

Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, reported no objection to record the compromise.

¶30

This Court enquired the de-facto complainant about his willingness to enter into a compromise in the matter. He represented before the Court that he was willing to compromise the case. The de-facto complainant further represented that the case may be closed against the accused.

¶31

The Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Bharathi Devi v. State of Telangana¹ at

¶32

para No.34 it is held as under:

¶33

“34…It has been held that there are certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavor having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, even if the offences have not been made compoundable .”

¶34

Considering the submissions and in the light of the judgment of the

¶35

Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Bharathi Devi , since there is an amicable settlement between the parties, in the interest of justice, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 are allowed.

¶36

Consequently, Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the accused in C.C.No.373 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned Special Magistrate Court, Tanuku is hereby quashed.

¶37

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

¶38

__________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO,J

¶39

1 (2024) 10 SCC 384

¶40

4

¶41

Date : 16.02.2026 VTS

Peethani Veera Venkata Surya Chandra Rama Prasada Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peethani Veera Venkata Surya Chandra Rama Prasada Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Orugunta Sridhar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K Raghavendra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Katta Dinakar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri.C. Chandra Sekhar Vs the State of Ap

Boya Balanjaneyulu Vs the State of Ap

Mangati Sridevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh