Disposed¶42

Mittapalli Venkata Koteswara Rao v. The State of A.P

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Oct 2025CRLRC/3258/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Crl.R.C.No.3258 of 2017; Ss.397/401 Cr.P.C.; disposal on compromise following mediation; Rs.8,00,000/- demand draft; full and final settlement; Crl.A.No.414 of 2014 (XIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet) confirming C.C.54/2008 (I Addl. JMFC, Narasaraopet); parties directed to record compromise before Court below; interim orders (including stay of 04.01.2018 and order dated 19-02-2018) vacated; miscellaneous petitions closed; T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J; 23.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case disposed of in terms of the mediated settlement; both parties directed to appear before the concerned Court below and record their compromise; interim orders granted earlier directed to stand vacated; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶42

Mittapalli Venkata Koteswara Rao Vs The State of A.P — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the settlement arrived at before the mediator (payment of Rs.8,00,000/- towards full and final settlement), the parties should record their compromise before the Court below and the Criminal Revision Case be disposed of on that basis. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

In view of the settlement arrived at before the mediator, both the parties were directed to appear before the concerned Court below wherein the criminal case is pending and record their compromise.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

With the above direction (recording of compromise pursuant to the mediated settlement), the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶42

Key takeaways

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.ratio¶43
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Case No.3258 of 2017, filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. by three accused against the judgment dated 14.11.2017 in Crl.A.No.414 of 2014 of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, whereby the judgment dated 22-07-2014 in C.C.54/2008 of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasaraopet, had been confirmed. Before disposal, the matter was settled before a Mediator: per clause-G of the mediator's report, the petitioners agreed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent/complainant towards full and final settlement of the revision, and a Demand Draft for Rs.8,00,000/- was handed over to the 2nd respondent through his counsel in Court. The Court (T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J; order dated 23.10.2025) directed both parties to appear before the concerned Court below wherein the criminal case is pending and record their compromise, disposed of the Criminal Revision Case with that direction, directed that interim orders granted earlier stand vacated, and closed the pending miscellaneous petitions. No precedent was cited or discussed; the merits of the conviction were not adjudicated.

¶1

[3369]

¶2

APHC010935402017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3258/2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

MITTAPALLI VENKATA KOTESWARA RAO, ADOPTED SON OF VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, BUSINESS, BALAJI PARBOILED RICE MILL, VINUKONDA ROAD, NARASARAOPET, WITHIN LIMITS OF NARASARAOPET PS

¶10

BOLISETTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, SON OF VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NEAR GDCC BANK, R/O. PRAKASHNAGAR, NARSARAOPET TOWN, WITHIN LIMITS OF NARSARAOPET PS.

¶11

MIRIYALA NARAHARI RAO, ADOPTED SON OF VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, BUSINESS, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, SATTENAPALLI ROAD, NEAR KOTA CENTER,NARSARAOPET TOWN, WITHIN LIMITS OF NARSARAOPET PS.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD.

¶15

NEELISETTY VENKATA SRINIVAS SUDHEE, S/O. PRABHAKARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 7-4-59/4, NAMBURIVARI BAZAR, NARSARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT (COMPLAINANT)

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased toto set aside the judgment dated.1411-2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 414/2014 of the Court of the XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge Narsaraopeta by confirming the judgment dt.22- 07-2014 in C.C.54/2008 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narasaraopet and pass

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 5266 OF 2017

¶19

Petition under Section 151 C.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the judgment dated 22-07-2014 in C.C.No.54/2008 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narsaropeta, Guntur District and pass

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 5267 OF 2017

¶21

Petition under Section 151 C.P.C. 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 CC No. 54/2008 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narsaropeta, Guntur District pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶23

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 extend the interim order of Stay granted on 04.01.2018 in Crl.Rc.No. 3258 of 2017 until further orders and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

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 clarify or extended the interim order passed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 19-02-2018 in CRLRC No.3258/2017 is valid and in force until it is expressly vacated and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶27

1.SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶30

2.POPURI LAKSHMI PRIYANVITA

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶32

Criminal Revision Case No.3258 of 2017

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 14.11.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.414 of 2014 on the file of the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet.

¶35

Heard both the learned counsel appearing.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that in pursuance of the settlement of the matter before the Mediator, the 2^nd respondent has agreed to take Demand Draft for Rs.8,00,000/-. The said demand draft is handed over to the 2^nd respondent through his counsel in the Court.

¶37

Perused the terms of the mediator’s report.

¶38

As per the mediator’s report particularly at clause-G, it contemplates as

¶39

follows:

¶40

“ As per the settlement, the petitioners are agreed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- to the 2^nd respondent, and in return the 2^nd respondent agreed to receive Rs.8,00,000/- from the petitioners towards full and final settlement of the case bearing Crl.R.C.No.3258 of 2017.

¶41

In view of the settlement arrived at before the mediator, both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court below wherein the criminal case is pending and record their compromise.

¶42

With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶43

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.

¶44

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

¶46

Date: 23.10.2025

¶47

Note: Issue C.C. Today B/o M K K

Mittapalli Venkata Koteswara Rao v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mittapalli Venkata Koteswara Rao v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bondela Bapuji, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Gunji Venkataramanaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vemula Lakshmi Devi, Kurnool Dist. & 3 Othrs Vs P.P., Hyd & Ano

The State of a.P, Vs Shaik Akbar Basha

Gowda Jermiah Rajesh & Another Vs the State of a.P., & Another

Abdul Vahid, Vs Pilli Sivaramakrishna Reddy (Died)