Pandipati Rajesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi, through SHQ., Mahila P.S., Kadapa. ...Respondent / Complainant ^ LA. NO: 10F 2012fCRLRCMP. NO: 1064 OF 2012) Between:

1. Pandipati Rajesh, Son of Subrahmanyamsetti, aged about 30 years, Residing at Bandlaveedhi.Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ... Petitioner / Accused

2. Pandipati Nagamani, Wife of Pandipati Rajesh, Aged about years, residing at 17/29 Madava veedhi, Kadapa ...De-facto Complainant AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi, through SHiG)., Mahila P.S., Kadapa. ...Respondent Petition under Section 320 Cr.P.C, praying circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to compound the offence under section 498 (A) of IPC and acquit the petitioner / A1. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2012(CRLRCMP. NO: 1065 OF 2012) Between:

1. Pandipati Rajesh, Son of Subrahmanyamsetti, aged about 30 years Residing at Bandlaveedhi,Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner / Accused

2. Pandipati Nagamani, Wife of Pandipati Rajesh, Aged about years, residing at 17/29 Madava veedhi, Kadapa ...De-facto Complainant AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi, through SHO,, Mahila P.S., Kadapa. ...Respondent Petition under Section 320 Cr.P.C, 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 and acquit petitioner of the charges under Section 498-A IPC by setting aside the judgment and decree in Crl.A.No.65 of 2008 dated 05.10.2010 Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa. on the file of the Court of IV passed Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: APHC010351922009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Crl.M.P.No.1064 of 2012 and Grl.lVI.P.No.1065 of 2012 In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 2057/2009 AND ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT Between: Panclipati Rajesh, The State Of A P Rep By Pp Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.P RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: CrLIVl.P.No.1064 of 2012: Crl.M.P.No.1064 of 2012 was filed containing the signatures of the petitioner and defacto complainant by name Pandipati Nagamani requesting to compound the offence punishable the petitioner/accused. 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.IMo.2057 of 2009 ( ; ^ Dated: 01.05.2025 under Section 498-A of l.p.c. and acquit

2. Heard learned counsel for the Public Prosecutor. petitioner/accused and learned Assistant

3. In the petition, it was averred that at the intervention of the family elders and community elders, an amicable settlement was arrived at in between the defacto petitioner. complainant The petitioner and defacto complainant got received a consent decree of divorce and they are living separately withopt interfering in the personal lives of one and another. As per the settlement arrived at in between the parties, this 4. petition was filed.

5. For the reasons mentioned i in the petition, petition is allowed permitting the defacto complainant to compromise with the petitioner. .Crl.M.P.No.1065 of 2019 Crl.M.P.No.1065 of 2012 was filed to compound the offence and acquit the petitioner for the charges under Section filed accompanying with statement in Crl.M.P.No.1064 of 2012 498-A of l.p.c. This petition is an affidavit of the defacto cornpl^riaritreiterating her 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2057 of 2009 Dated: 01.05.2025

2. In view of the fact that the petitioner and defacto complainant got divorce and living separately, this petition is also deserved to be allowed.

3. Accordingly, this Cr!.M.P.No.1064 of 2012 is allowed. Crl R.C.No.2057 of 2009 This Criminal Revision Case was filed challenging the concurrent I conviction for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

2. As per the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.1064 of 2012, the petitioner and defacto complainant are permitted to compromise the case and the defacto complainant was permitted to compromise the case and the defacto complainant was permitted to compound the offence as per Section 326 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’

3. in view of the fact that the petitioner and defacto complainant are living separately by obtaining decree of divorce and the defacto complainant filed a petition to compromise and compound the offence with the petitioner, this Criminal Revision Case can be disposed.

4. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The Judgments passed in Crl.A.No.65 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions the file of the 1 Additional Judicial Judge, Kadapa and C.C.No.131 of 2005 on Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa are hereby set aside. Consequently, the 4 Cr!.R.C.IMo.2057of2009* Dr.YLR, J Dated: 01.05.2025 petitioner/accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The %^irtibH^rSessio '' Kadapa.(with records)

2. TheTAdditifenaUadicial First Class Magistrate Kadapa. (with records)

3. The Station House Officer, Mahila P.S. Kadapa.

4. The Superintendent, District Jail, Kadapa. Sri. P. Ravi Shahker, Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to 6. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

7. The Section Officer. Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. Three CD Copies

8. PR Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER eP I 08 SEP® Sj -kW CRL.M.P.No.1064 of 2012 and CRL.IVI.P.No.1065 of 2012 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2057 OF 2nng ALLOWING THE CRL.M.P.No.1064 of 2012 and CRL.M.P.No.1065 of 2012 And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2057 OF 2009