Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4251 (AP)

VANDANA RAMALAXMI NAIDU, v. KONCHADA GANAPATHI, & ANOTHER,

CRLRC/1711/2009 · 2025-02-17

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010029572009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.No.2 of 2009 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1711 of 2009 Between: Vandana Ramalaxmi Naidu, ...PETITIONER AND Konchada Ganapathi Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VISWANADHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M KARUNA SAGAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: This case was posted to this date from 14.02.2025 directing as last chance. No representation for petitioner and the first respondent. 2. The revision was filed against concurrent conviction for the alleged offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, which is compoundable as per Section 147 of the Act. 3. I.A.No.2 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner and the first respondent seeking permission to compound the offence. In the affidavit accompanying the petition, the revisionist averred in the affidavit that he was lodged in Central Prison, Visakhapatnam and he had been in jail since 30.09.2009 pursuant to his conviction to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; he had paid the fine amount; at the behest of the elders and the first respondent the petitioner settled the dispute. In the petition, the revisionist and first respondent have signed along with the counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent. 4. In view of the compromise arrived at between both the parties and the averments of the affidavit also clearly stating about it, I.A. No.2 of 2009 is ordered accordingly. Hence, the revision has become infructuous inasmuch as the revisionist and first respondent had compromised the matter. 5. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 17.02.2025 sj 65 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.No.2 of 2009 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1711 of 2009 Date: 17.02.2025 sj