Disposed¶31

Bhupathi Veera Venkata Satya Narayana Murthy v. the State of A.P. & Another

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Mar 2025CRLRC/1669/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Criminal Revision Case 1669/2008; decided 07.03.2025 by Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; revision disposed of as compromised on joint memo and affidavit of petitioner Bhupathi Veera Venkata Satya Narayana Murthy and respondent No.2; settlement through well-wishers; signatures of respondent No.2 identified by counsel M. Sai Teja (representing P.V.V. Satyanarayana); G. Simhadri for petitioner; Public Prosecutor for respondents; no costs; pending IAs closed; no statute or precedent cited; no merits adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No.1669 of 2008 disposed of as compromised on the joint memo and affidavit; I.A. allowed; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood closed. ¶31

Bhupathi Veera Venkata Satya Narayana Murthy Vs the State of A.P. & Another — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010228632008

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3521]

¶5

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1669/2008

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bhupathi Veera Venkata Satya Narayana Murthy ...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of A P Another and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

G SIMHADRI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

P V V SATYANARAYANA

¶18

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following Order:

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶22

I.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and

¶23

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1669 of 2008

¶24

Sri G.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner present

¶25

and requested to record memo and affidavit filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2, in view of the compromise arrived between them.

¶26

Sri M.Sai Teja, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.V.Satyanarayana reported that he has no objection, for recording compromise and he identified the signatures of respondent No.2, on the memo and also on the affidavit.

¶27

In view of the averments mentioned in the affidavit and also

¶28

the memo filed jointly by the petitioner and respondent No.2, the revision has to be disposed of as compromised, inasmuch as, settlement was arrived at in between the parties, at the intervention of the well-wishers on both sides.

¶29