Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/16/2011 of KOVVURI TATA REDDY, Vs THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD., on 22 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2026 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 16/2011 Between: 1. KOVVURI TATA REDDY, S/O GANGI REDDY, R/O
APHC010482192011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2026
IN/AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 16/2011
Between:
1. KOVVURI TATA REDDY, S/O GANGI REDDY, R/O
KOMARIPALEM VILLAGE, BICCAVOLE MANDAL, EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD, REP. BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT
HYDERABAD.
2. MAMIDI SRILAKSHMI, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED
36 YEARS, R/O. KOMARIPALEM VILLAGE, BICCAVOLE
MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. RESPONDENT
NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER
DATED
15.07.2025
IN
I.A.NO.1
OF
IN
CRL.R.C.NO.16 OF 2011.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto present this Memorandum of Crl.R.C., in this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment in Crl.A.No. 259 of 2009, dt.03-01-2011 on the file of the Court of the V Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), East Godavari Dsitrict at Rajahmundry.
IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 26 OF 2011
petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Sentence and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the Crl.R.C., in this Hon'ble Court prefferred against the Judgment dt.03-01-2011 in Crl.A.No. 259 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the V Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC) East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, filed against the Judgment in SC.No. 117 of 2008
on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram.
petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to implead the Victim/proposed respondent as party to the Criminal Revision Case No. 16 of 2011 and in all other interlocutory applications (miscellaneous petitions) arising out of Criminal Revision Case No. 16 of 2011 as Respondent No.2 and pass petition, the High Court may be pleased may be please to permit the petitioner/defacto complainant to compromise the matter with the petitioner/accused in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) East Godavari at Rajahmundry in Confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/ Accused by the
Judgment dated. 27.10.2009 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram and pass
petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to record the compromise and set aside the conviction and sentence passed in Judgment dated: 03.01.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) East Godavari at Rajahmundry in Confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/ Accused by the Judgement dated. 27.10.2009 in S.C.No.117 of 2008 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram and thereby acquit the Accused/Petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
I.A.No.1 of 2026 is filed seeking permission to compromise the matter.
2. I.A.No.2 of 2026 is filed to record the compromise and set aside the conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2009 by judgment dated 03.01.2011 on the file of the learned V Additional sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajahmundry.
3. Heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Sri Panini Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Kalepu Yashwanth, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de-facto complainant.
4. This Criminal Revision case appears for final hearing before this Court. During the pendency of the instant revision, two applications, mentioned herein above, have been placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the matter has been settled between the parties outside the Court and in terms of the settlement, a compromise petition has been filed and prays for necessary orders.
5. It appears that the instant revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 03.01.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2009 on the file of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajahmundry, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court in S.C.No.117 of 2008 dated 27.10.2026 against the petitioner/Accused.
6. The petitioner/accused was found guilty by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 354 of IPC and he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for five years. Against such order of conviction, the petitioner/accused had approached learned Appellate Court and after hearing parties, learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of conviction. Aggrieved thereby, the instant revision has been preferred.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner was under incarceration for a period of two (02) years, during pendency of the entire criminal litigation. The matter was settled outside the Court, for which this Court may compound offences against the petitioner/accused and acquit him in terms of the settlement.
8. To the said submissions, learned counsel for the respondents raised no objection.
9. During hearing the matter, the de-facto complainant namely, Mamidi Srilakshmi W/o Nageswara Rao, personally appeared before this Court and on query, she submits that the dispute between the petitioner/accused and herself was compromised outside the Court in presence of the Village elders; at present, she has no objection against the petitioner/accused. She further submits that she signed the compromise petition voluntarily, without any compulsion, in the presence of her counsel.
10. Perused the compromise petition, duly signed by the parties and attested in the presence of their respective learned counsel.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner/accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 354 of IPC. According to the provision 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”), offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is compoundable at the instance of de-facto complainant. As the complainant has filed compromise petition voluntarily, punishment against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC is hereby set aside as compounded. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner/accused in terms of direction of the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC be returned to the petitioner/accused according to the law.
12. Considering the punishment imposed on the petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, this Court finds that according to the provision 320 of Cr.P.C., offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC is not compoundable in nature. However, as the alleged offence was committed in the year 2007 and nearly twenty years have lapsed since commission of offence, furthermore, the dispute between the parties certainly have minimized, this Court considering the facts and mitigating circumstances that the de- facto complainant being a woman has proceeded to this Court to exonerate the petitioner/accused from the offences, appropriate orders are required to be passed in this peculiar case.
13. In view of the above, the punishment imposed against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable Under Section 354 of IPC by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court though confirmed but hereby modified from five years of simple imprisonment to the period of incarnation already undergone by the petitioner/accused during the entire criminal litigation.
14. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2026 are allowed and the Criminal Revision case is disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Date: 23.07.2026 ANS