Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ayyala Reddy Venkata Babu, Chennai 2 ... vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp And Anr., on 22 August, 2025
APHC010138142013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2466/2013
Between:
1. AYYALA REDDY VENKATA BABU, CHENNAI & 2 OTHRS.,, S/O.
A.HARI BABU, R/O. D.NO. 20-12, YMCA STREET, SATHUMA
NAGAR, THIRUVOTTRIYUR, CHENNAI - 19, TAMIL NADU STATE.
2. AYYALA HARI BABU, S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA, R/O. D.NO. 20-12,
YMCA STREET, SATHUMA NAGAR, THIRUVOTTRIYUR, CHENNAI -
19, TAMIL NADU STATE.
3. AYYALA LEELAVATHI, W/O. A.HARI BABU, R/O. D.NO. 20-12,
YMCA STREET, SATHUMA NAGAR, THIRUVOTTRIYUR, CHENNAI -
19, TAMIL NADU STATE.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. STATE OF AP REP PP AND ANR, REPT. BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COIURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.
2. M SWATHI, W/O. A.R.VENKAT BABU, R/O. D.NO. 6-7-577,
SRIPURAM COLONY, K.T.ROAD, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.PC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the present criminal revision
case by setting aside the order dated 25-09-2013 passed by the court of the
IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
2
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 3825 OF 2013
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
stay all further proceedings in C.C.No. 147 of 2012 on the file of the IV
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the
criminal revision case.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. G SEKHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. T JANARDHAN RAO
The Court made the following:
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision is filed to challenge the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3456 of 2013 in C.C.No.147 of 2012, pending before the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"). By virtue of the order dated 25.09.2013, the Learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioners herein.
2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners/accused and unofficial respondent No.2.
3. Upon ascertaining this, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that C.C.No.147 of 2012 is currently pending before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, with the matter listed for hearing on 03.09.2025. He has also filed an online case status report, which supports his assertion regarding the pendency of C.C.No.147 of 2012 before the Trial Court.
4. A perusal of the proceedings sheet dated 30.06.2025 reveals that, as no one appeared on behalf of either party, this Court directed the Secretary of the Legal Services Authority, Chittoor, to secure the presence of the 3 petitioners/A.1 to A.3 and to record their statements. The Secretary, DLSA, subsequently recorded their statements, wherein the petitioner/A.1, the Respondent No.2 (wife) along with their daughter, stated that they have been living harmoniously since 2017 and are currently residing in Bangalore.
5. As the matter appears to have been settled between husband and wife, both parties have shown no interest in proceeding with the revision petition. Moreover, neither party has filed any application to compound the offences in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). As such, this Court is not inclined to record a compromise solely based on the statements recorded by the DLSA Secretary, especially without being satisfied by this Court, the compromise was voluntarily effected and in the absence of proper identification of the parties by the concerned Police official.
6. Furthermore, the report is called from the Secretary, DLSA, merely to ensure the survival of the cause pending before the Court, given the non- appearance of the parties. Additionally, the Secretary, DLSA, is not assigned the duty of recording any compromise between the parties.
7. As previously noted, neither the parties nor their counsel have appeared. Given that the matter appears to be settled, this Court is of the view that appointing a Legal Aid Counsel to decide the revision case would be a futile exercise.
8. Since the matter is pending before the competent Magistrate Court, and this revision case has been filed solely to challenge the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.3456 of 2013, the parties are expected to record any compromise, if compoundable, before the trial Court. Given that the parties have shown no interest in making submissions in the revision case, likely due to subsequent developments, this Court is inclined to dispose of the revision petition with a direction to the parties to take necessary steps to record any compromise before the competent Court. This Court is not supposed to record a compromise in the present application, for the reasons stated above.
49. In view of the foregoing, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of without prejudice to the rights of both parties to contest, with liberty to pursue their remedies and to record any compromise, if applicable, before the competent court.
Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated, and miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 22.08.2025.
MS 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2466 of 2013 Date: 22.08.2025 MS