Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Maganti Adarsh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
APHC010031002023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3311]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Monday, the Thirteenth Day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five
Present
The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi
I.A.Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of 2025
In/and
Crl.P.No.520 of 2023
Between:
1. Maganti Adarsh, son of Subrahmanyam Chowdary,
age 40 years, resident of plot No.5, D.No.59-8-7/5-6, Vasudha
Apartments, Near Bhashyam Public School, Gayatri Nagar,
Vijayawada City, Krishna District.
2. Maganti Subrahmanyam Chowdary, son of late Mallikarjuna Rao,
aged 66 years, resident of plot No.5, D.No.59-8-7/5-6, Vasudha
Apartments, Near Bhashyam Public School, Gayatri Nagar,
Vijayawada City, Krishna District.
...Petitioners / A1 & A2
and
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. Kondrupati Mohana Rao, son of Krishnaiah, aged 69 years,
occupation retired S.B.H.Manager, resident of plot No.409, Sai
Rajani Block, Brindavanam Apartments, Telephone Exchange
road, Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.
...Respondents
2
BSB,J
Crl.P.No.520 of 2023
Counsel for the petitioners / accused:
1. M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the respondents:
1. Satyanarayana Dhara
2. Public Prosecutor (AP)
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition No.520 of 2023 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, („the Cr.P.C.‟) is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.127 of 2021 against the petitioners/A1 and A2 in Crime No.207 of 2019 on the file of Mangalagiri Rural police station, Guntur District.
2. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed under sections 320 (6) r/w section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) r/w 359 (6) r/w 528 of Bharitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) to permit the petitioners /accused Nos.1 and 2 in the criminal petition to compromise the case in C.C.No.127 of 2021 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
3. I.A.No.3 of 2025 is filed under sections 320(6) r/w section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), 359 (6) r/w 528 of Bharitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) to permit petitioner / complainant to compromise the case in C.C.No.127 of 2021 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
3BSB,J Crl.P.No.520 of 2023
4. I.A.No.4 of 2025 is filed under sections 320(2) r/w section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), 359 (2) r/w 528 of Bharitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) to record compromise entered by petitioners / A1 and A2 with respondents vide memorandum of understanding dated 08.10.2025 and consequently quash C.C.No.127 of 2021 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
5. I.A.No.5 of 2025 is filed under sections 320(2) r/w section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), 359 (2) r/w 528 of Bharitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) to record compromise entered by petitioner / complainant with respondents / accused vide memorandum of understanding dated 08.10.2025 and consequently quash C.C.No.127 of 2021 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
6. I.A.No.6 of 2025 is filed by petitioner / complainant under sections 320(8) r/w section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), 359 (8) r/w 528 of Bharitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) to compound offences registered against the respondents / accused under sections 447, 427, 420, 506, 323, 341 r/w 34 of I.P.C vide F.I.R.No.207 of 2019 on the file of Mangalagiri Police Station, Guntur District and quash C.C.No.127 of 2021 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
7. I.A.No.7 of 2025 is filed by petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 under sections 320(8) r/w section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), 359 (8) r/w 528 of Bharitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) to compound offences registered against the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 under sections 447, 427, 420, 506, 323, 341 r/w 4 BSB,J Crl.P.No.520 of 2023 34 of I.P.C vide F.I.R.No.207 of 2019 on the file of Mangalagiri Police Station, Guntur District and quash C.C.No.127 of 2021 on the file of I- Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
8. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that the complainant, Kondrupati Mohana Rao retired as Bank Manager in 2009, got 3 daughters, out of which his 2nd daughter / Nalajala Renuka got married to Nalajala Srinivasa Rao and acquired one vacant site to an extent of 82 cents in Survey No.399/1 from Maganti Anjani who is no other than wife of A2 and mother of A1 and got registered document dated 10.07.2003 in her favour vide Doc.No.3973 of 2003, S.R.O.,Mangalagiri. Later, with the permission of VUDA, Vijayawada, Nalajala Renuka got constructed a compound wall around her site. On 06.07.2016, the complainant, on behalf of his daughter, went to the vacant site and noticed that the compound wall on both western & northern sides of the site was demolished and works were being carried on by the developers of Manjeera Monarch Constructions to construct residential apartments. On enquiry, he came to know that A1 and A2, who are father and son, are entering into development agreement with the Chairman & Managing Director of Manjeera Constructions and started construction of multi-storeyed residential and commercial apartment complex building in 82 cents land of Nalajala Renuka. Later, it was identified that A1 and A2, having occupying the site of 17 cents, started construction. When the complainant questioned the accused about the illegal constructions, the accused offered 8 residential plots proportionate to their occupied land and also prepared memorandums of understanding dated 17.11.2016 and 02.02.2017 to hand over the plots to Nalajala Renuka. But, all the accused failed to fulfill the terms & conditions of the M.O.Us. and hand over 8 residential plots. The 5 BSB,J Crl.P.No.520 of 2023 complainant, being the father and G.P.A. of Nalajala Renuka, asked them to fulfil the terms and conditions of M.O.Us., but the accused threatened him with dire consequences and warned to kill him, if he asks again and cheated complainant and her daughter Nalajala Renuka. The complainant filed O.S.No.164 of 2018 before IV-Additional District Judge Court, Guntur. Later, in I.A.No.343 of 2018 in O.S.No.164 of 2018, an advocate commissioner was appointed to measure the plaint schedule property with the help of the Mandal Surveyor, Mangalagiri. While it was so, on 6.5.2019, when complainant along with his relatives visited the site, A1 picked up quarrel with the complainant and assaulted him with hands and legs and threatened the complainant with dire consequences i.e., death. As a result, the complainant sustained injuries. On the basis of his complaint, a case in crime No.207 of 2019 was registered under sections 447, 427, 420, 506, 323, 341 r/w 34 IPC of Mangalagiri Rural police station. A1 to A3 obtained anticipatory bail. The charge sheet was numbered as C.C.No.127 of 2021 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition has been filed.
9. Pending the proceedings in the main petition before this Court, I.A.Nos.2,3,4,5,6 and 7 of 2025 were filed under sections 320(6) and 320(2) Cr.P.C. and 482 Cr.P.C. by the complainant stating that both the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of the Court at the intervention of their elders and well wishers. In view of the settlement arrived between both the parties, they sought permission to compound the offence and to record the compromise and consequently to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.127 of 2021 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
6BSB,J Crl.P.No.520 of 2023
10. On 10.10.2025, when the matter came up for consideration, the petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent / complainant were present before this Court and reported that the matter had been settled out of Court and there was no objection to quash the criminal case in C.C.No.127 of 2021 on the file of I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Mangalagiri. The Station House Officer was directed to identify the parties.
11. On 13.10.2025, both the parties have been duly identified by their respective counsels and Sk.Subhani, A.S.I.No.2910 of Mangalagiri Rural P.S who is the S.H.O. identified the parties. They produced copies of original aadhar cards for their identity proof and photostat copies of which are filed along with the petitions. Both the parties stated that they have voluntarily entered into compromise and the matter was settled and the defacto complainant has no objection to dismiss the case against the accused.
12. The terms of compromise were reduced into writing in the form of a memorandum of compromise, which is signed by the parties and their counsels. The accused were mentioned as „parties of first part‟ and complainant mentioned as „party of second part‟ and the contents of the memorandum of compromise read as follows and:
"a) That the alleged offences under Sections 447, 427, 420, 506, 323, 341 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are hereby compounded owing to the out of Court Settlement entered by the parties hereto, the party of Second Part (complainant) unconditionally agreed to withdraw all the allegations against parties of first part (accused) including that 7 BSB,J Crl.P.No.520 of 2023 they have committed the offences of trespass, mischief, criminal intimidation, breach of trust and cheating.
b) That Party of Second Part hereby declares that he is not interested in prosecuting the Calendar Case No.127 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri any further owing to the amicable settlement. The Party of Second Part hereby unconditionally withdraws all the allegations including that of trespass, mischief, criminal intimidation, breach of trust and cheating and the Complaint vide vide FIR No.207 of 2019 on the file of Mangalagiri Police Station, Guntur District against the Parties of First Part.
c) The Party of Second Part hereby declare and agree that he shall appear before the Court or the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati as and when necessary for recording the compromise entered between the parties hereto and recorded under this Memorandum of Understanding.
d) The Parties of First Part and Party of Second Part hereby declare that there is no collusion in entering into this Memorandum of Understanding and that the same is entered with their free will and volition. In witness whereof parties of first part and party of second part have put their signatures on this the 08.10.2025 at Vijayawada".
In view of the above, it is prayed to record the compromise and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.127 of 2021 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, in the interest of justice.
8BSB,J Crl.P.No.520 of 2023
13. The Supreme Court in Daxaben Vs. The State of Gujarat & others1 had an occasion to deal with various decisions in Monica Kumar (Dr.) Vs. State of UP2, Mrs. Dhanalakshmi Vs.R. Prasanna Kumar3, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others4, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh5, Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand6, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Smbhajirao Chandrojirao Angre7, Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal8, State of Panjab Vs. Gurdial Singh9, Kapil Agarwal & Others Vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others 10, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab11, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Panjab12, State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi13. Finally, it was held in paragraph No.46 of the said decision as follows:
"46. In Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbathbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujrat and Another14, a three- Judge Bench of this Court quoted Narinder Singh (supra), Vikram Anantrai Doshi (supra), CBI V. Maninder Singh (supra), R.Vasanthi Stanley (supra) and held:-1
2022 Live Law (SC) 642 2 (2008) 8 SCC 781 3 AIR 1990 SC 494: 1990 Supp SCC 686 4 (1983) 1 SCC 1 5 (2010) 11 SCC 226 6 (2013) 11 SCC 673 7 (1988) 1 SCC 692 8 (2007) 12 SCC 1 9 (1980) 2 SCC 471 10 (2021) 5 SCC 524 11 2012 (9) Scale 257 12 (2014) 9 SCC 466 13 (2014) 15 SC 29 14 (2017) 9 SCC 641 9 BSB,J Crl.P.No.520 of 2023 "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the 10 BSB,J Crl.P.No.520 of 2023 offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the 11 BSB,J Crl.P.No.520 of 2023 continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
14. Perused the record. When this Court has questioned the de facto complainant with regard to compromise, he has categorically stated that he has no objection to quash the case against the accused and voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioners /accused Nos.1 and 2. It is not a serious and heinous crime to refuse permission to compound the offence. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the apex Court and as the chances of conviction are bleak and remote due to the compromise, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. The memorandum of understanding dated 08.10.2025 filed by the parties shall form part of this order.
15. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. So, there is no need to pass any order under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, I.A.Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of 2023 are allowed.
12BSB,J Crl.P.No.520 of 2023
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the case against accused in C.C.No.127 of 2021 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri police station, Guntur District, is hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 13.10.2025 GRL 13 BSB,J Crl.P.No.520 of 2023 83 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI Criminal Petition No. 520 of 2023 Dated 13.10.2025 GRL