The High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings in matrimonial or family disputes if a voluntary settlement is reached, the victim is an adult, and continuation of trial would be futile.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1553/2026

Between:

1.NISSANKARAO DURGA PRASAD, 1. NISSANKARAO DURGA

PRASAD,S/O SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED66,R/O D.NO.3-123,

YARRABASAVAIAH BUILDINGS,KARUMURU, GUNTUR.

2.NISSANKARAO UMA DEVI, ,W/O NISSANKARAO DURGA PRASAD,

AGED 57,R/O D.NO.3-123, YARRABASAVAIAH

BUILDINGS,KARUMURU, GUNTUR.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

AMARAVATHI.

2.VICTIM, VICTIM

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1.P VIVEK

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.GRANDHI PRIYANKA

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

Criminal Petition Nos.3148 of 2024 and 1553 of 2026 are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same P.R.C. number, though the Petitioners are different.

2. Criminal Petition Nos.3148 of 2024 and 1553 of 2026 have 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 Cr.No.197 of 2017 of Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur Urban District in P.R.C.No.118 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Court, Guntur for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n) and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C’).

3. I.A.No.1 of 2026 in Crl.P.No.3148 of 2024 and I.A.No.2 of 2026 in Crl.P.No.1553 of 2026 are filed by Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant seeking permission to compromise the matter with the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in view of the settlement arrived between the parties.

4. I.ANo.2 of 2026 in Crl.P.No.3148 of 2024 and I.A.No.3 of 2026 in Crl.P.No.1553 of 2026 are filed by Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant seeking recording of the compromise with the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3. A joint memo duly signed by the parties and countersigned by their respective learned counsel is filed.

5. The de-facto complainant lodged a written report with the Respondent police. Based on the report, an FIR was registered in Crime No.197 of 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n) and 506 read with Section 34 of ‘the IPC’. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file as P.R.C. No.118 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

6. It is submitted that, with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, parted ways, and decided to live separately. Respondent No.2 has expressed her intention not to pursue the criminal proceedings further and states that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without coercion, threat, or undue influence.

7. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Ms.Grandhi Priyanka, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, have reported no objection to recording the compromise.

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab¹(2012)10SCC303, at paragraph Nos.57, 58 & 61 held as under:

“57.Quashingof offenceor criminalproceedings onthegroundof settlementbetween an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offencesgiventoacourtunderSection320ismaterially differentfromthequashingof criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions