Allowed

G. Srinivasulu Reddy @ Gajjala Seen Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Mar 2025CRLA/2702/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal appeals where the accused were convicted for kidnapping and extortion-like offences. The Court held that Section 364A IPC required a ransom demand which was absent. Relying on Gian Singh guidelines, the Court accepted the voluntary compromise and acquitted the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted.

G. Srinivasulu Reddy @ Gajjala Seen Reddy Vs The… — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶5

I.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2021 in/and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2594 of 2018 and

¶6

I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021 in/and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2702 of 2018

¶7

I.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2021 in/and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2594 of 2018

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2594 of 2018

¶9

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment passed in S.C.No.29/2016, dated 17.09.2018 on the file of the court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor^District.

¶10

Between;

¶11

K. Chakradhar Reddy @ Chakradhar Reddy, S/o. K. Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. D. No. 25/A, MK Naidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, Tirupati Rural Mandal,^{ChittoorDistrict.}

¶12

K. Reddemma, W/o. K. Chakradhar Reddy, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o.D.No.25/A, MK Naidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶13

...Appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 2

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.

¶16

...Respondent/Complainant

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Between;

¶19

P Babu Khan, S/o.P.Jabbar Khan, aged about 43 years, Occ; PD Agent, R/o.D.No.1-150, Mallangunta Village, Chiguruwada^Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶20

...Petitioner/PWI

¶21

AND

¶22

K. Chakradhar Reddy @ Chakradhar Reddy, S/o. K. Chinnappa^Reddy, Aged about 53 Years, Occ; Govt. Teacher, R/o. D. No.^25/A,MKNaidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, Tirupati Rural Mandal,^{ChittoorDistrict.}

¶23

K. Reddemma, W/o. K. Chakradhar Reddy, Aged about 45^Years,Occ; House wife, R/0.D.N0.25/A, MK Naidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶24

...Respondents/Appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 2

¶25

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House^Officer, Tiruchanur Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,^HighCourtof AP at Amaravathi.

¶26

...Respondent/Complainant

¶27

Petition under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support^{ofthepetition,theHigh} Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to compound^theoffencein Crl.A.No.2594 of 2018 pending before this Hon'ble Court^{filedaggrievedby} the conviction and sentence passed in SC.No.29 of 2016,^{dated17.09.2018} by taking consideration of the settlement of dispute^{outsidetheCourtandby} acquitting the Appellants.

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶29

Between:

¶30

K. Chakradhar Reddy @ Chakradhar Reddy, S/o. K. Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. D. No. 25/A, MK Naidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor^District.

¶31

K. Reddemma, W/o. K. Chakradhar Reddy, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o.D.No.25/A, MK Naidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶32

...Respondents/Appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 2

¶33

AND

¶34

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Tiruchanur Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High^{CourtofJudicatureat} Amaravathi.

¶35

P. Babu Khan, S/o.P.Jabbar Khan, aged about 43 years, Occ; PD Agent R/o.D.No.1-150, Mallangunta Village, Chiguruwada Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶36

...Respondent/Complainant

¶37

Petition under Section 320(2) of 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 record the compromise between the parties in Crl.A.No.2594 of 2018 pending before this Hon'ble Court filed aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in SC.No.29 of 2016, dated 17.09.2018 by taking consideration of the settlement of dispute outside the Court and by acquitting the Appellants.

¶38

Counsel for the Appellants

¶39

: Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2021: Ms.V. Sesha Kumari

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent

¶42

: Public Prosecutor

¶43

I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021 in/and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2702 of 2018

¶44

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2702 of 2018

¶45

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment passed in S.C.No.29/2016, dated 17.09.2018 on the file^{ofthecourtofV} Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor^District. Between:

¶46

G. Srinivasulu Reddy @ Gajjala Seen Reddy, S/o.G.Subba Reddy, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Peddakantivaripalli, H/o. Motuvaripalli, KV^{Palli,Kalikiri} Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶47

Y. Phanindra Reddy, S/o.Ramamohan Reddy, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Mahal Yerradiddi Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶48

M. Jyotji Kumar, S/o.Late Muni Chandra, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Garnimitta, KV Palli Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶49

...Appellants/Accused Nos.3 to 5

¶50

AND

¶51

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.

¶52

...Respondent/Complainant

¶53

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶54

Between:

¶55

P Babu Khan, S/o.P.Jabbar Khan, aged about 43 years, Occ: PD Agent, R/o.D.No.1-150, Mallangunta Village, Chiguruwada Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶56

...Petitioner/PW1

¶57

AND

¶58

G. Srinivasulu Reddy @ Gajjala Seen Reddy, S/o.G.Subba Reddy, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Peddakantivaripalli, H/o. Motuvaripalli, KV Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶59

Y. Phanindra Reddy, S/o.Ramamohan Reddy, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Mahal Yerradiddi Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶60

M. Jyotji Kumar, S/o.Late Muni Chandra, Occ: Cultivation,^R/o. Garnimitta, KV Palli Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶61

...RespQndents/Appellants/A3 to 5

¶62

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.

¶63

...Respondent/Complainant

¶64

Petition under Section 320(6) of 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 permit the Petitioner to compound^theoffencein Crl_A.No.2702 of 2018 pending before this Hon'ble Court filed aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in SC.No.29 of 2016, dated 17.09.2018 by taking consideration of the settlement of dispute outside the Court and by acquitting the Appellants.

¶65

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶66

Between:

¶67

G. Srinivasulu Reddy @ Gajjala Seen Reddy, S/o.G.Subba Reddy, Occ; Cultivation, R/o Peddakantivaripalli, H/o. Motuvaripalli, KV Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶68

Y. Phanindra Reddy, S/o.Ramamohan Reddy, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Mahal Yerradiddi Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶69

M. Jyotji Kumar, S/o.Late Muni Chandra, Occ; Cultivation,^R/o. Garnimitta, KV Palli Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶70

...Respondents/Appellants/A3 to 5

¶71

AND

¶72

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.

¶73

P Babu Khan, S/o.P.Jabbar Khan, aged about 43 years,^Occ:PD Agent, R/o.D.No.1-150, Mallangunta Village, Chiguruwada Panchayath Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶74

...Respondents/Complainant (PW1)

¶75

Petition under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased please to record the compromise between the parties in CrI.A.No. 2702 of 2018 pending before this Hon'ble Court filed aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in SC.No.29 of 2016, dated 17.09.2018 by taking consideration of the settlement of dispute outside the Court and by acquitting the Appellants.

¶76

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy^Kalava Counsel for the Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2021: Ms.V. Sesha Kumari

¶77

Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor

¶78

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY I.A.Nos.l of 2021 & 2 of 2021 in/and Crl.A.No.2594 of 2018 and I.A.Nos.1 of 2021 & 2 of 2021 in/and Crl.A.No.2702 of 2018

¶79

COMMON JUDGMENT :

¶80

Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.2594 of 2018 are A.1 and A.2, and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.2702 of 2018 are A.3 to A.5, in Sessions Case No.29 of 2016 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. They filed the respective Criminal Appeals, challenging judgment, dated 17.09.2018 in the said Sessions Case whereby they are convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 384, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C.’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period^{ofthreemonthsforthe} offence punishable under Section 364A of the I.P.C.; two years for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the I.P.C.; six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C., and six months for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with 34 of the I.P.C.. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶81

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 11.10.2018, was pleased to enlarge the appellants herein on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two

¶82

sureties each for the like ^'■'■'^■'^0.2594 & 2702 of ms sum to the satisfaction Of the V Additional Magistrate of First Class, Judicial Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3. When the case came up for hearing 11.02.2025, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court expressed that sincesi the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the l.p.c. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten undergo years, it is desirable that has to hear these appeals. a Single Judge

¶83

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de-facto Khan is complainant P.Babu a resident of MallanguntaViiiage Tirupati Rural Mandal. He was working as Pigmy Deposit Agent i - in Syndicate Bank Tiruchanur Branch. On 18.05.2013 at about 12.00 noon, when the de-facto complainant was standing in front of a cool drink shop near Bank, the accused tried to kidnap him and due to efar, the de-facto complainant ran into the cabin of the On that, four Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank. accused went into the bank and dragged the de-facto out of the Bank by complainant catching hold of his shirt and forcibly kidnapped heating him with hands and kicking with legs him by and put him in Innova whichregistrationA1 andNo.PY-01-BS-3456.A2 were sitting andThetheysaidtookInnova car followed anothercar bearingcar in him to forest extracted his si area where they signatures on ten blank non-judicial stamp papers the forest and left him in area and absconded. At the time of extortion, the accused also took away the cell phone belonging to the de-facto complainant. The motive for the

¶84

3 SRK,J Crl.A.No.2594 & 2702 of 2018

¶85

offence is previous enmity with regard to the land dispute between the de-facto complainant and the accused.

¶86

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants^{submitsthatan} offence punishable under Section 364A of the I.P.C. would not attract as against the appellants herein for the reason that there is no demand for any ransom from the appellants herein. He further submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter and filed joint memos and affidavits in the interlocutory applications.

¶87

Today, both the defacto complainant and the accused are present before the Court. They are identified by both the counsel. They produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. This Court examined the defacto complainant with regard to the compromise. He submits that there was no threat or coercion from any corner in compromising the matter. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant is also present. She too categorically stated that both the parties entered into compromise.

¶88

In respect of the submission that the offence under^{Section364Aofthe} I.P.C. would not attract against the appellants herein, this Court perused the record. PW1, as on the date of the alleged incident i.e. on 18.05.2013, was present in Syndicate Bank according to him. He got^{outoftheBanktohavea} cool drink at nearby cool drink shop. It is alleged that A2 to A6 got entry into the bank and requested the Manager to send the defacto complainant, out in order to

¶89

4 ^ , SRK, J Crl.A.No.2594 & 2702 of 2018 have negotiations wi ™th him. On that, the defacto complainant expressed that he had to deposit the money and once the amount is deposited, he would be coming out. Thereupon, about 10 persons entered into the bank and forced the defacto complainant by dragging him at the entranoe of the bank. When the bank staff came to his rescue, A3 to A6 forced him to board i n a white car parked at the entrance of the bank. Thereafter, the accused are alleged to have taken him to a nearby forest wherein the defacto complainant was made to sign on some papers in the presence of r accused Nos.1 & 2. Thereafter, the defacto complainant was left at the forest and all the accused left the place. The defacto complainant had walked from the forest area to the main road and boarded an Auto and returned to his house, and thereafter. lodged Ex.PI -report before the police. 8. In the crossexamination, the defacto complainant categorically stated that he gave all the names of the accused i i e. A2 to A6 in Ex.P1, also mentioned in the evidence. and the same were He further mentioned that he has no acquaintance with the names of A2 to A6 in Ex.P1. it has been mentioned that some unknown persons entered the bank on 18.05.2013 and took away the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant further submits that he knows the accused Nos.1 & 2 and i in whose presence, he was made to sign on papers. It is pertinent to mention here that the papers which were signed by the defacto complainant have been handed over to the defacto complainant i in the year 2018 itself. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant too

¶90

5 SRKJ Crl.A.No.2594 & 2702 of 2018

¶91

concurs with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the papers have been handed over.

¶92

In order to attract an offence under Section 364A of the I.P.C., it is essential that there should be a kidnap of a person and there should be a demand for ransom. Section 364 A of the I.P.C. reads as follows:

¶93

“Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. ”

¶94

A perusal of the said provision goes to show that there are three stages in commission of an offence punishable under Section 364A IPC viz. kidnapping or abduction of a person and keeping him in detention; threat to cause death or hurt and the use of kidnapping, abduction or detention with a demand to pay ransom, and when the demand is not met, then causing death.

¶95

In the case on hand, there is absolutely no demand for ransom except stating that the defacto complainant was made to sign on certain papers. It is not the case of the prosecution or the appellants that the papers which were signed by the defacto complainant were made use, by the appellants. The papers which were signed by the defacto complainant were returned back to the defacto complainant. When such is the case, there is any amount of ambiguity whether the offence under Section 364A of the I.P.C. would attract or not as against the

¶96

¶97

SRK,J Crl.A.No.2594 8t appellants in the absence of 2702 of 2018 any ransom being demanded by the appellants or confining the defacto complainant with threat of death or hurt, Of that there was an instant threat of death to the kidnapped person from the appellants. 11. A perusal of the evidence goes to show that the defacto complainant was forcibly taken by the appellants and he "as made to sign on certain he was left scot free, papers and in such circumstances,ci this Court i 's of the opinion that the offence under Section 364 A of the l.p.c. '^ould not attract as against the appellants herein, The act of the accused would fall the offence 'Within the purview of punishable under Section 365 IPC. which is imprisonment up to 7 punishable with years and fine. irrespective of the parties have said facts, since all the compromised and when they are living Court, in the event, and harmony, this again. The defactopasses an order of sentence, the old flames vvould flare up complainant gave affidavit that the parties settled the disputes amicably and he entered into compromise voluntarily. This Court is satisfied with regard to voluntariness in entering into the compromise. In view of foe joint memo and affidavit being filed, this Court deems it a fit foe order of conviction case to set-aside and sentence i mposed on the appellants herein.

¶98

Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 °f2021 and 2 of 2021 ' A.Nos.I of 2021 fo Crl.A.No.2594 of 2018 and and 2 of 2021 'ni Crl.A.No.2702 of 2018 Resultantly. the Criminal are allowed, Appeals are allowed by setting aside the Judgment

¶99

¶100

SRK,J Crl.A.No.2594 & 2702 of 2018

¶101

dated 17.09.2018, passed in S.C.No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the V

¶102

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶103

As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶104

Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

Sessions Judge, Tirupati Chittoor

¶109

Magistrate, Tirupati Chittoor

¶110

The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Tirupati, Chittoor District. Pradesh

¶111

imaravl4oUT^"“'‘= High Court of Andhra

¶112

One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate [OPUC]

¶113

One CC to Ms. V. Sesha Kumari, Advocate [OPUC]

¶114

Pradesh at

¶115

Amafavathr Section, High Court of Andhra

¶116

¶117

8. Three CD Copies

¶118

andK.l'’offo2!?n°2To2 oiaoTs

HIGH COURT

DATED:26/03/2025

COMMON JUDGMENT

L.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2071 in/and CRIMImai appeal No.2fiQ2i and LA.Nos.1 & 2 nf 7n7-i i in/and CRIMImal appfai ot^-, of 2018

¶124

NO..702 o, ..,s

¶125

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL PETITION (UNDER SECTION 320 OF Cr.P.C)

¶126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHI2A PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

¶127

I.A.NO. OF 2020 IN CRL.A.NO. 2594^ OF 2018

¶128

Between: 1. K. Chakradhar Reddy @ Chakradhar Reddy, S/o. K. Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about 48 Years, R/o. D. No. 25/A, MK Naidu Colony Sainagar Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District 2. K. Reddemma, W/o. K. Chakradhar Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. D. No. 25/A, MK Naidu Colony Suinagar Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Tiruchanur P.S., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Judicature at Amaravathi. 2. P. Babu Khan, S/o. P. Jabbar Khan,

¶129

S/o. K. Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about 48 Years, R/o. D. No. 25/A, MK Naidu Colony Sainagar Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District

¶130

K. Reddemma, W/o. K. Chakradhar Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. D. No. 25/A, MK Naidu Colony Suinagar Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District

¶131

.. Appellants/A 1 & 2. And

¶132

P. Babu Khan, S/o. P. Jabbar Khan, Aged about 43 Years, Occ: PD Agent, R/o. D. No. 1-150, Mallangunta\Tllage,

¶133

Chiguruwada Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal,

¶134

Chittoor District.

¶135

.. Respondents/Complainant.(PWl)

¶136

JOINT MEMO OF COMPROMISE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPALLENTS/ACCUSED No.l & 2 AND THE 2"dRESPONDENT

¶137

It is submitted that basing on the report given by^{the2"'^respondentherein} and the same was registered as in FIR No. 108 of 2013 of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District for the for the^{offenceU/Sec.364-A,} 323, 384, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. After investigation the Police filed the charge sheet against Respondents/Appellants herein and three others, The learned magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session and the same is numbered as SC No. 29 of 201i^,.,-on the file of the Family Court-cum- Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi,^{Chittoor-District.} 2) It is submited that by an Order dated 1^09.2018 the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, convicted the Appellants herein and three others for the offence U/sec 364-A, 323, 384 and Section 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. and accordingly they were sentenced to undergo^{RIforaperiodof} 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 each and in default^{topayfineSIfor3} months each U/sec 364-A I.P.C. and further sentenced to 2 years for the

¶138

¶139

/X.

¶140

0.1 fence punishable U/sec 384 Oflence U/sec 323 I.P.c I.P.C. and further sentenced to 6 months for the U/sec 506 r/w 34 I.P.c. Allandthe furth er sentenced to 6 months for the offen ce sentences shall the said conviction and run concurrently. Aggrieved sentence the by same is pending befo re this Hon'ble Court.appellants filed the above appeal and the

¶141

sides3) theIt ismatterfurtherwassubmittedsettled that at the intervention of the elders of the both amicably and as per the parties, the 2nd Respondent compromise between the herein have no objection Judge,passed inTirupathi,SC.NO.29Chittoorof 2016 onDistrictthe file of the V Additionalto set Districtaside theandconvictionsession Appellant hy allowing the s vide Criminal Appeal appeal filed by the Court. Mo. 2594 of 2018 pending before this Hon’ble

¶142

It further submitted may be please that in order to meet the ends of justice view of the guidelinesto compounded,i though the offences are not compoundablethe offencesin -s issued in Gian Sing 2012 10 see 303 V. The State of Punjab having regard reported in to the fact that settled their the parties have disputes and the amicabD conviction passed by the learnedcomplainant have no objection to set aside the Qffence session judge. It is further s are entirely personal submitted that the m nature and do Hence, the conviction and sentence may be please not affect the Public peace, compromise and would to compound on account of secure the ends of justice.

¶143

Hence the Petitioners are hereby please to record the prays that this Hon’ble Court compromise betw niay be pending before this Hon’ble Court eenfiledthe parties m CrLA.No. 2594 of 2018 sentence aggrieved by the passed in SC.NO.29 conviction and of 2016, dated consideration of the settlement of disput 17.09.20i|_ by taking the Appellants and e outside the Court and by acquitting pass such other or orders deem fit and proper in the ci as this Hon’ble Cour t as may circumstances of the case. Counsel for -d^PpSTnt

¶144

Appellants/Accused U

¶145

V' Counsel for e Reiipondent No. 2 Defactocomplainant(PW 1)

¶146

MEMOR^NO UM qii:-eKiMiNAL TIO (UNDER^CTIO>^«^r/w 3 OPoefTp.c) 3'i-o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

¶147

I.A.NO. OF 2020 IN

¶148

CRL.A.NO. 2702 OF 2018

¶149

Between:

¶150

1.	G. Srinivasulu Reddy@ Gajjala Seen Reddy, S/o. G. Subba Reddy, aged about 27 years, R/o. Peddakantivaripalli, H/o. Motuvaripalli, K.V. Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.
2.	Y. Phanindra Reddy, S/o. Rama Mohan Reddy, Aged about 28 Years, R/o. Mahal Yerradiddipalli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. 1.	M. Jyothi Kumar, S/o. Late Muni Chandra, Aged about 23 years, R/o. Garnimitta, KV Palli Mandal, Chittoor District. And .. Appellants/A 3 to 5. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Tiruchanur P.S., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Judicature at Amaravathi.
2.	P. Babu Khan, S/o. P. Jabbar Kl;an, Aged about 43 Years, Occ: PD Agent, R/o. D. No. 1-150, MallanguntaVillage, Chiguruwada Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ..Respondents/Complainant.(PW1)

¶151

JOINT MEMO OF QOMPROMISE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPALLENTS/ACCUSED No.3 to ^AND THE S^dRESPONDENT

¶152

It is submitted that basing on the report given by^the2 nd respondent herein and the same was registered as in FIR No. 108 of 2013 of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District for the for the offence U/Sec. 364-A, 323, 384, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. After investigation the Police filed the charge sheet against Respondents/Appellants herein and two others (case against A6 spilt up as PRC number 32 of 2015). The learned magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session and the same is numbered as SC No. 29 of 201£ on the file of the Family Court-cum- Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

¶153

It IS submited that by an Order dated 13.09.2018 the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, convicted the Appellants herein and two others for the offence U/sec 364-A, 323, 384 and Section 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. and accordingly they were sentenced to undergo R1 for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 each and in default to pay fine SI for 3 months each U/sec 364-A I.P.C. and further sentenced to 2 years for the

¶154

offence punishable U/sec 384 I.P.C. and further sentenced to 6 months for the Offence U/sec 323 I.P.C and further sentenced to 6 months for the offence U/sec 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the appellants filed the above appeal and the same is pending before this Hon’ble Court.

¶155

It is further submitted that at the intervention of the elders of the both sides the matter was settled amicably and as per the compromise between the parties, the 2'^<^ Respondent herein have no objection^{rosetasidetheconviction} passed in SC.NO.29 of 2016 on the file of the V Additional^{Districtandsession} Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District by allowing the appeal filed by the Appellants vide Criminal Appeal No. 2702 of 2018 pending^{beforethisHon’ble} Court. 4) It further submitted that in order to meet the ends of justice the offences may be please to compounded, though the offences are not compoundable in view of the guidelines issued in Gian Sing v. The State of Punjab reported in 2012 10 see 303 having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the complainant have no objection to set aside the conviction passed by the learned session judge. It^{isfurthersubmittedthatthe} offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the Public peace. Hence, the conviction and sentence ma3^ be please to compound on account of compromise and would secure the ends of justice.

¶156

Hence the Petitioners are hereby" prays that this Hon’ble Court may be please to record the compromise between the parties^{inCrLA.No.2702of2018} pending before this Hon’ble Court filed aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in SC.NO.29 of 2016, dated 17.09.2018 by taking consideration of the settlement of dispute outside the Court and by acquitting the Appellants and pass such other or orders as this Hon’ble Court as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶157

Counsel for the'^ppellants

¶158

Appellants/Accused
1.
2.
3.

¶159

v- Counsel No. 2

¶160

Defacto complainant (PWl)

G. Srinivasulu Reddy @ Gajjala Seen Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Srinivasulu Reddy @ Gajjala Seen Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Mopperla Chenchu Chandramouli Vs the State of A.P.

Bugata Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Spl. P.P., Acb Cases

Chikkala Subbarayudu Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Spl.P.P. for Acb Cases

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Gadda Raghavaiah

Karri Sridhar Reddy Vs Kolli Antarvedhi & the State of A.P.

K. Chakradhar Reddy @ Chakradhar Reddy Vs The State Andhra Pradesh