Dismissed¶34

Anagani Lavanya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC31 Mar 2026CRLP/4269/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J; Criminal Petition No. 4269 of 2021; petition by Accused Nos.6 to 9 (Anagani Lavanya, Matta Radha, Matta Pattabhi Rama Rao, Veligatla Uma Maheswara Rao) to quash Crime No.59 of 2021, Narasapuram Town Police Station, West Godavari District; Sections 482/437/438/439 Cr.P.C. and Section 528 BNSS; Lok Adalat compromise between parties; dismissed as infructuous; miscellaneous petitions closed; dated 01.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

After recording learned counsel's submission that both parties had entered into a compromise before the Lok Adalat and that nothing survived for adjudication, the Court dismissed the Criminal Petition as infructuous without deciding the quashing question. ¶34

Anagani Lavanya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3327]

¶2

APHC010266292021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4269/2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

ANAGANI LAVANYA, W/O.LATE RAJESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H.NO.8-39/1/3, NEW HEMA NAGAR, UPPAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

¶10

MATTA RADHA, W/O. PATTABHI RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H.NO.9-10-1/2,13TH WARD, NARASAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

MATTA PATTABHI RAMA RAO, S/O.SATYANAAYANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.9-10-1/2,13TH WARD, NARASAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶12

VELIGATLA UMA MAHESWARA RAO, S/O. S/O.SATYANAAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. CYCLE MECHANIC, R/O. H.NO.8-5511, NARASAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NARASAPURAM TOWN POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI.

¶16

PAMARTHI MAHA LAKSHMI, W/O.SATHISH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEWIFE, RIO. BALLA VARI VEEDHI, 14TH WARD, MOKAVARIPALEM, NARASAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶17

¶18

SRK,J Crl.P.No.4269 of 2021

¶19

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶20

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtto quash the Crime No.59/2021 of Narasapuram Town Police Station, Narasapuram, West Godavari District as against the petitioners/ accused Nos.6 to 9 and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the FIR in Crime No.59/2021 of Narasapuram Town Police Station, Narasapuram, West Godavari District

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶24

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.59/2021 of Narasapuram Town Police Station, Narasapuram, West Godavari District including arrest of the petitioners/ accused Nos.6 to 9, pending disposal of the above criminal petition and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶26

1.B V ANJANEYULU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶28

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶29

¶30

SRK,J Crl.P.No.4269 of 2021

¶31

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶32

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/Accused Nos.6 to 9 to quash the proceedings in Crime.No.59 of 2021 of Narasapuram Town Police Station, Narasapuram, West Godavari District.

¶33

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that both the parties have entered into a compromise, before the Lok Adalat and, in view of the same, nothing survives for adjudication in the Criminal Petition and the matter has become infructuous.

¶34

Recording the said submission, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶35

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶36

________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J

¶37

Date:01.04.2026

¶38

PGT

Anagani Lavanya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anagani Lavanya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Tammisetty Yuvarani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Palapothu Prasannanjaneyulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pulkanam Venkat Krishna Chaitynaya Vs the State SHO

Gudimetla Uma Mahesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Medarametla Jeevan Sai Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sala Surendra Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh