APHC010535162015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. GAMPA JAGAN MOHANA RAO, S/O. BASAVA RAJU, R/O. D.NO. 27 8-7, DARLAVARI VEEDHI, JAMPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G.DISTRICT. 1. GAMPA SUJATHA RAJAHMUNDRY W R/O. D.NO. 28-4-77, PEDDAVEEDHI, JAMPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY. 2. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 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: 3334 OF 2015 GAMPA JAGAN MOHANA RAO, S/O. BASAVA RAJU, R/O. D.NO. 27 7, DARLAVARI VEEDHI, JAMPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY, ...PETITIONER AND GAMPA SUJATHA RAJAHMUNDRY W/O. JAGAN MOHANA RAO, 77, PEDDAVEEDHI, JAMPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3560] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA GAMPA JAGAN MOHANA RAO, S/O. BASAVA RAJU, R/O. D.NO. 27- 7, DARLAVARI VEEDHI, JAMPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY, ...PETITIONER /O. JAGAN MOHANA RAO, 77, PEDDAVEEDHI, JAMPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following Order : Challenging the Order dated 20.11.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1171 of 2015 by Principal Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. 2. Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case shows that the Petitioner being the complainant has initiated Criminal Case against his wife for the alleged offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Learned Trial Court after recording the evidences placed by the prosecution, after hearing the parties, acquitted the Accused from the charges. Against which, the Petitioner being a defacto complainant approached the Appellate Court by filing an Appeal with delay of 228 of days. Accordingly an application for condonation of delay was filed. Such application was turned down by the learned Sessions Judge concerned by passing an interim order. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that after the Judgment was passed, there was talks of amicable settlement between the parties and consequently the Petitioner could not file an Appeal in time. He further argued that the Respondent No.1 is the wife of the Petitioner. The elders tried to settle the matter within the family, consequently delay occurred. 4. He further argued that learned Sessions Judge concerned did not believe the Petitioner and dismissed the application for condonation of the delay. He further argued that there are sufficient merits in the Appeal itself. There are material evidences including eye witness to support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the Appeal is required to be head by condoning the delay of 228 days. Learned Sessions Judge concerned has committed an error in passing the order. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, refuting the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that learned Trial Court has categorically observed the merits and demerits of the case placed before him. Learned Trial Court has also perused all evidences on record and so called eye witnesses. Learned Trial Court after observing entire merit has acquitted the Accused person. As the order of acquittal has been passed, the fact of amicable settlement between the parties appears to be not believable. So learned Sessions Judge has correctly dismissed the application for condonation of delay. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both parties. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, it appears that learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the ground for condonation of delay on the fact that the Petitioner has not mentioned the names of the elders by intervention of whom talks of settlement was going on. However, learned Sessions Judge is also of view that the reason as stated for condonation of delay is not sufficient. 7. In deciding the issue, I have also gone through the observation of the learned Trial Court, who passed order of acquittal. In the Affidavit filed by the Petitioner in support of his application for condonation of delay, the sole ground as stated by the Petitioner is that there were chances of settlement before the elders of the family. It is true that if it is a case of conviction, the chances of settlement to minimize the dispute between the parties, who are actually married and having children, can be possible, but in this case, order of acquittal is in favour of the wife. Thus, in no stretch of imagination, talks of settlement between the elders are possible. The dispute between parties is matrimonial in-nature; the same cannot be counted or reckoned in condoning the delay of 228 days in filing the Appeal. 8. Under the above observation, I find no justification to entertain the Criminal Revision Case. The observation of the learned Sessions Judge concerned appears to be justified and left un-interfered. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 21.11.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3334 OF 2015 Date: 21.11.2025 KK