APHC010491342012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY-THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2025 in/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2566 OF 2012 Between: 1. PALIKA SRINIVASA KUMAR, S/O LATE APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SETTIBALIJA, SAHAYA MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, OPP: RAJA GROUND, TUNI, E.G.DIST. 2. PALIKA GANNEMMA, W/O LATE APPA RAO, 63 YEARS, SETTIBALIJA, BACKSIDE OF SYAMALAMBA TEMPLE, GAIGOLAPADU, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, E.G.DIST. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. THE STATE OF A.P., REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 2. PALIKA CHAMUNDESWARI, W/O. SRINIVASA KUMAR, 46 YEARS, D.NO.27-1-70/10, DRAKSHARAMA ROAD, ANISETTI VARI STREET, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (Respondent no.2 is impleaded as per the Court's order dated 23.09.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.No.2566 of 2012). ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment of Addl. Judl. 2 First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, E.G.Dist., in C.C.No.51 of 2009, dated 16.04.2012 convicting them for an offence U/s.498-A r/w 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for (5) days each and also U/s.4 of D.P.Act for one year and also a fine of Rs.500/- in default simple imprisonment for one month each, allow the revision and direct refund of the fine amount paid by them and the Judgment of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, E.G.Dist., dated 19.12.2012 in Crl.A.No.171 of 2012, confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant as imposed by the Trial Court, allows the revision and directs a refund of the fine amounts paid by them. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 3848 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence passed by the Additional Judl. First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, E.G.Dist., in C.C.No.51 of 2009, dated 16.04.2012, as confirmed by the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, E.G.Dist., in Crl.A.No.171 of 2012, dated 19.12.2012, released the petitioners on bail, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implied the de facto complainant as Proposed Party/Respondent No.2 in the Crl.R.C.2566 of 2012, as well as the miscellaneous petitions, if any, to enable me to assist this Court with the facts and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit to permission of the offense punishable under section 498-A of IPC r/w 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the both Accused in Crime No.87 of 2008 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station in C.C.No.51/2009 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District and in confirming the conviction and sentence in Judgment dated 19.12.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Session Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, and allow this criminal revision Case No.2566 of 2012 and pass 3 IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit to compromise of the offense punishable under section 498-A of IPC r/w 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the both Accused in Crime No.87 of 2008 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station in C.C.No.51/2009 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District and in confirming the conviction and sentence in Judgment dated 19.12.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Session Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, and allow this criminal revision Case No.2566 of 2012 and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to compound the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC r/w 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the both Accused in Crime No.87 of 2008 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station in C.C.No.51/2009 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District and in confirming the conviction and sentence in Judgment dated 19.12.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Session Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, and allow this criminal revision Case No.2566 of 2012 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SRI SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRI MURALI BABU DOMA 2. SRI K. SANDEEP, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1. I.A.No.02 of 2025 has been filed by the 2nd respondent/proposed party seeking permission to prosecute the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, (for short, ‘D.P.Act’) against both accused persons in 4 C.C.No.51 of 2009, pending before the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, and to confirm the conviction and sentence rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, in Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2012, vide Judgment dated 19.12.2012. 2. I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 have been filed by the 2nd respondent/proposed party, seeking disposal of the present revision case in accordance with the terms and conditions of the compromise entered into between the parties. 3. The case of the prosecution is that in May 2003, the marriage of the de facto complainant, Smt. Pallika Chamundeswari, was solemnized with A-1. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry, Rs.20,000/- as 'Adapaduchu Katnam', 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments, and articles worth Rs.50,000/- towards 'Saree Samans'. During the course of their wedlock, the de facto complainant gave birth to a daughter named Amrutha. It is alleged that ever since the marriage, the de facto complainant was subjected to harassment by A-1 and his family on the ground that the dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was insufficient, and she was coerced into agreeing to a divorce. It is further alleged that before the marriage, A-1 had illicit relations with one Ramadevi, and continued the same even after the marriage, which led him to make attempts on the life of the de facto complainant. In December 2007, the accused is said to have picked up a quarrel with the de facto complainant, stating that A-1 had secured a government job for which Rs.3,00,000/- had to be paid, failing which, he would lose the job. Thereafter, the accused visited the house of the de facto complainant, demanding that she either agree to a divorce or bring an additional dowry amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, the accused subjected the de facto complainant to continuous harassment, cruelty, and threats of dire consequences. 4. After considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced, the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, 5 Ramachandrapuram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) vide Judgment dated 16.04.2012 in C.C.No.51 of 2009, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of five days each, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. Furthermore, the accused were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each, for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P.Act. 5. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 16.04.2012 passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.51 of 2009, the appellants/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2012 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), challenging the correctness of the said Judgment. By its Judgment dated 19.12.2012, the learned First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as against A-3 to A-7. However, it confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 and A-2. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, have preferred the present Criminal Revision. 6. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record. 7. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, the de facto complainant/P.W.1, and the daughter of A-1 appeared in person before this Court. Respondent No. 2 and the daughter of A-1 were identified by Police Constable No. 3600 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station, who is personally acquainted with them, while the petitioners/A-1 and A-2, were identified by their learned counsel. The terms and conditions of the compromise, as set out in the affidavit filed before this Court, were read over to all the parties, who affirmed that the contents are true and correct to their knowledge and understanding. 6 8. Upon ascertaining this, the de facto complainant submitted that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties and that she was presently residing with the accused. She further stated that a compromise has been arrived at with the accused and accordingly requested the Court to permit compounding of the offence. 9. In view of the submissions made and the settlement arrived at between the parties, both parties have amicably resolved their disputes and have entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, since the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC is compoundable in nature, and being satisfied that both parties have amicably settled the dispute in relation to the said offence, this Court is accordingly inclined to compound the offence under Section 498-A IPC. 10. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under Section 498-A of the IPC are set aside against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2, and they are acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C., in light of the terms and conditions of the compromise. 11. As seen from the record, the accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as the accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC due to the compounding of the offence, the accused may not be convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. 12. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Others V. State of Haryana and Another1, wherein it was held that: “13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad2are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the 1 (2000) 4 SCC 675 2(2000) 3 SCC 693 7 young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their ‘cases’ in different courts. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the de facto complainant/PW.1 and the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 have amicably compromised the matter and are living together and requested the Court to take a lenient view and set aside the conviction under section 4 of the D.P.Act. 14. This Court views that the Hon’ble Supreme Court's observations in B.S. Joshi’s case (cited supra) underscore the need to protect the peace and dignity of marriage, instead of allowing long legal battles that can seriously harm the people involved. Also, when family elders or well-wishers, who could help the couple settle their issues, are made part of criminal cases, the chance of solving problems peacefully will be lost. Because of these serious concerns, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that matrimonial litigation should be discouraged where possible, advocating instead for mutual agreement and amicable resolution of disputes. 15. With regard to the offence alleged under Section 4 of the D.P.Act, the learned counsel representing the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 contends that the prosecution has failed to produce any concrete or compelling evidence to substantiate the claim of a dowry demand. The learned counsel submits that the entire case against the petitioners is fundamentally weak and lacks the necessary evidentiary basis required for a conviction under the said provision. It is further contended that the Trial Court proceeded to convict the petitioners primarily on the strength of the testimony tendered by the prosecution witnesses, notably PW.1, who is the material witness, along with several other 8 witnesses. However, upon careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it becomes apparent that her testimony suffers from significant deficiencies. As PW.1 failed to delineate specific and concrete particulars concerning the alleged dowry demands, there is an absence of crucial details such as the exact nature of the sums demanded, the dates on which these demands were purportedly made, and the context in which such demands occurred. This lack of specificity severely undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s case. Despite these glaring omissions, the Trial Court chose to place reliance on the vague and generalized statements made by PW.1 and other witnesses, leading to the conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act. Such an approach by the Trial Court raises concerns regarding the standards of proof applied, especially in the context of an offence that requires clear and cogent evidence to establish the commission of the alleged crime. 16. The record reveals a significant development that the parties have amicably settled, as PW.1 joined with her husband. This reconciliation undermines the prosecution’s claim of ongoing dowry demands and harassment. Given the lack of specific evidence, reliance on vague testimonies, and the subsequent settlement, this Court finds that the prosecution has not proven an offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act beyond a reasonable doubt. 17. The material on record indicates that neither the Trial Court nor the 1st Appellate Court adequately appreciated the prosecution's contention, as no specific particulars regarding the alleged dowry demands were furnished. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the D.P.Act, and this Court is inclined to acquit the petitioners/A.1 and A.2, of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P.Act. 18. Upon being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the compromise and in view of the amicable settlement between the de facto 9 complainant/PW.1 and the petitioners/A.1 and A.2, I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2025 are allowed. 19. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the Judgment dated 19.12.2012 in Crl.A.No.171 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, which had confirmed the Judgment and sentence passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, dated 16.04.2012 in C.C.No.51 of 2009 in respect of petitioners/A.1 and A.2. The conviction and sentence under Section 498-A of IPC is set aside against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2, and they are acquitted under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., in light of the terms and conditions of the compromise. The petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. Interim orders, if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated and consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Dated: 23.09.2025 MS 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2566 OF 2012 Dated: 23.09.2025 MS