Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/918/2012 of DODDIPATLA VEERABHADRA RAO Vs THE STATE OF A.P. on 20 November 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 918/2012 Between: 1. DODDIPATLA VEERABHADRA RAO, S/O RAMA RAO, BUGGA
APHC010404532012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 918/2012
Between:
1. DODDIPATLA VEERABHADRA RAO, S/O RAMA RAO, BUGGA
STREET, NEAR PADMA THEATRE, D.NO.8-206, RENIGUNTA
VILLAGE, CHITTOOR DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
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 to set-aside the judgments of the learned Judl. First Class Magistrate, Alamuru in C.C.No.359
of 2006, dated 17.02.2012 convicting the petitioner U/s. 498-A IPC and sentencing to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and the judgment of the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), E.G.Dist., Rajahmundry in Crl.A.No.92 of 2012, dated 21.06.2012 confirming the judgment of the lower Court and direct refund of the fine amount paid and allow the revision.
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 1440 OF 2012
suspend the execution of sentences passed by the learned Judl. First Class Magistrate, Alamuru in C.C.No.359 of 2006, dated 17.02.2012 as confirmed by the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), E.G.Dist., Rajahmundry in
Crl.A.No.92 of 2012, dated 21.06.2012, and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.
implead the proposed respondent as respondent No.2 in the above CRL.RC.No.918 of 2012 as well as the other Miscellaneous Applications and pass
grant permission to the Petitioner/de-facto complainant to enter into compromise with the 2nd Respondent/Appellant/Accused in C.C.No.359/2006
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Alamuru and also in CrI.Appeal No.92/2012 SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT, on th file of VIII ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, Rajamahendravaram by getting compound the offence Punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. in terms of compromise in the interest of justice and pass
record the compromise statement of the petitioner/de-facto complainant and the 2nd Respondent/Accused and set aside the conviction against the 2nd Respondent/Accused In C.C.359/2006 on the file of J.F.C.M. Court Alamuru , and on the file of VIII Addl. District and CrI.Appel No.92/2012 Sessions Judge’s Court, Rajamahendravaram in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PECHATHY RANGA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following Order:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025
in/and
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 918 OF 2012
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:
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with concurrent finding of the learned Courts below against the present petitioner, wherein they convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, the instant criminal revision case has been preferred.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was settled between the petitioner and the de facto complainant.
3. De facto complainant appeared before this Court by filing an implead petition I.A.No.1 of 2025 to her as 2nd respondent and also filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 and I.A.No.3 of 2025 seeking permission to enter into compromise and to record compromise. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, implead petition i.e., I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed. The compromise arrived at between the parties with the affidavit filed to that effect duly signed by the parties and attested by the learned counsel for the parties, be taken on record.
4. It appears that the order of conviction was passed against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, whcih is not compoundable in nature. However, as the matter was settled in between the parties, this Court is intended to dispose of this revision on merit.
5. It appears that the dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature, therefore, several proceedings are initiated and those were arrived at compromise between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The finding of the learned trial Judge for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the present petitioner is perused. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court though gave finding, failed to describe that there are discrepancies that chance of concocted evidence and tutored witness in matrimonial disputes cannot be ruled out.
6. Considering the same and considering the entire circumstances, it appears that the offence charged against the present petitioner under Section 498-A IPC was not properly proved beyond all reasonable doubt. There are some discrepancies between the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 as well as PWs.2 and 3. I further observed that the learned appellate Court has not properly gone into the evidences and did not scan the evidence on record. There are evidences that there is a settlement between the parties. Considering the entire aspect, I find that the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt against petitioner.
7. Under the above observation, the order of conviction passed against the present petitioner by the learned Courts below appears to me improper and illegal and the same is hereby set aside.
8. The accused/petitioner be acquitted from the case. The sureties stands in favour of the petitioner are also discharged.
9. Consequently, the instant Criminal Revision Case appears to me meritorious and the same is allowed and accordingly, I.A.Nos 2 and 3 of 2025 are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 21.11.2025 SPP
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.918 of 2012
21.11.2025
SPP