Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/2009/2009 of NANDIPALLI BALARAM, Vs THE STATE OF A.P., REP BY PP., on 12 November 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2009 OF 2009 Between: 1. NANDIPALLI BALARAM,, S/O. LATE PYDITHALLI,
APHC010604222009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3560]
THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2009 OF 2009
Between:
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.
1. NANDIPALLI BALARAM,, S/O. LATE PYDITHALLI, BUSINESS, R/O. KUPPILI VEEDHI, VIZIANAGARAM,
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.
2. NANDIPALLI CHINNAMMALU, W/O. NANDIPALLI BALARAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. 7-168, MAADIGA STREEET, RAJAM, SRIKAKULAM, AP, 532127. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 17.10.2025 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2025 IN CRL.R.C.NO.2009 OF 2009.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G.SAI LOCHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. B SRINIVASA RAO
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following Order :
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the concurrent finding of Courts below in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred.
2. It appears that learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the present Petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period six months and with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Such finding was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
3. During pendency of the instant Criminal Revision, the parties settled the dispute between themselves and they are residing together peacefully. Learned counsel for the Petitioner filed an application being I.A.No.4 of 2025 before this Court. It appears that a Joint Memo signed by the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 is duly attested by respective learned counsels.
4. The offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is not compoundable in nature. As the parties are living peacefully, this Court is not in a position to disrupting equilibrium. However, it appears from the record that the observation of the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court is appropriate. Thus, the order of conviction against the present Petitioner appears to be justified.
5. So far as attending facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Petitioner has already in custody during enquiry and trial of the matter for 45 days. The conviction and sentence of the present Petitioner is hereby modified and adjusted to the period already undergone by him.
6. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J
Date: 13.11.2025
KK