Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5362 (AP)

Duggineni Narasimha Rao v. Boddu Radha Rani

CRLRC/617/2026 · 2026-07-08

Y Lakshmana Rao

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 09.07.2026 Date of uploading : 17.07.2026 APHC010310822026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 9th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2026 In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 617/2026 Between: 1. DUGGINENI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURE,C/O KONJETI BUILDERS, BESIDE SIVA SAI PROVISIONS,OPPOSITE TO VIJAYA GANESH NILAYAM,JOURNALIST COLONY, M.M. DONKA, ONGOLE TOWN,PRAKASAM DISTRICT A.P-523 002, ...PETITIONER AND 1. BODDU RADHA RANI, W/O. ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSEMAKER,R/O. BRUNDAVAN NAGAR, ONGOLEPRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P- 523 001. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, APHC,THROUGH THE SHO, ONGOLE TALUKA POLICE STATIONPRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P- 523 001, ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PATHI SIVA PRASAD 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused seeking to set aside the Calendar and Judgment dated 09.03.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2024 passed by learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole, which confirmed the Calendar and Judgment dated 07.11.2024 in C.C.No.146 of 2018 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. I.A.No.2 of 2026 has been filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 seeking permission to compromise the case. 3. I.A. No. 3 of 2026 has been filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 seeking to record the compromise entered into between the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 and the Respondent/Petitioner/Accused in the present case. 4. Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, reported no objection to record the compromise. 5. A Joint Memo has also been filed affixing the signatures of the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 as well as their respective Counsels. The 3 Petitioner and Respondent No.1 have amicably settled the matter out of Court in terms of the mutual understanding arrived at between them. 6. In view of the settlement of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, Prakasam District, in C.C. No. 146 of 2018, dated 07.11.2024, as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2024, dated 09.03.2026, by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole, are hereby set aside. Hence, the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, aged about 60 years, is a small peasant and is unable to bear the costs as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H1 observed that for compounding an offence under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Revisional Court, i.e., the High Court, the Petitioner is required to pay a certain amount towards costs. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain2 relaxed the rigor of the judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu supra and observed that in appropriate cases, matters can be compounded at the revision stage either on payment of minimal costs or by waiving the costs in suitable cases. 1 (2010) 5 SCC 663 2 (2014) 10 SCC 690 4 8. Considering the financial conditions of the Petitioner, the payment of costs is waived. 9. Accordingly, the I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 are allowed, and the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 09.07.2026 PRA Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 5 20 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 617 OF 2026 09.07.2026 PRA