Disposed¶35

Duggineni Narasimha Rao v. Boddu Radha Rani

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jul 2026CRLRC/617/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compromise of criminal revision at High Court stage; compounding of offence under Negotiable Instruments Act; acquittal under Section 320(8) CrPC 1973 on settlement; waiver of Damodar S. Prabhu compounding costs applying Prateek Jain (2014) 10 SCC 690; Sections 438 and 442 BNSS 2023 revision; conviction in C.C. No. 146 of 2018 confirmed by Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2024 set aside; joint memo settlement; Ongole, Prakasam District.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case disposed of as compromised; conviction and sentence in C.C. No. 146 of 2018 (07.11.2024), as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2024 (09.03.2026), set aside; Petitioner/Appellant/Accused acquitted under Section 320(8) CrPC 1973; payment of compounding costs waived; I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 allowed; no order as to costs. ¶35

Duggineni Narasimha Rao Vs Boddu Radha Rani — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the out-of-court settlement between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 recorded through the Joint Memo, the Criminal Revision Case should be disposed of as compromised and the conviction and sentence set aside. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

In view of the settlement of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised; consequently, the conviction and sentence in C.C. No. 146 of 2018 (dated 07.11.2024), as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2024 (dated 09.03.2026), are set aside and the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Considering the financial conditions of the Petitioner, the payment of the costs (which would otherwise be payable on compounding at the revision stage per Damodar S. Prabhu, as relaxed by Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain) is waived.

¶42

Key takeaways

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 are allowed and the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised; there shall be no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed as a sequel.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Case No. 617/2026 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, 09.07.2026), filed under Sections 438 read with 442 BNSS 2023 against the Calendar and Judgment dated 09.03.2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2024 (III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole), which had confirmed the conviction and sentence dated 07.11.2024 in C.C. No. 146 of 2018 (II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole). Following an out-of-court amicable settlement between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, recorded through a Joint Memo and with no objection from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Court disposed of the revision case as compromised, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the accused under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Relying on Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain (2014) 10 SCC 690, which relaxed the rigor of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (2010) 5 SCC 663 regarding costs on compounding Negotiable Instruments Act offences at the revision stage, the Court waived payment of costs in view of the Petitioner's financial condition. I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 were allowed.

¶1

¶2

[3521]

¶3

Date of reserved for orders : Nil

¶4

Date of pronouncement : 09.07.2026 Date of uploading : 17.07.2026

¶5

APHC010310822026

¶6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶7

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶8

THURSDAY, THE 9^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶11

I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2026 In/And

¶12

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 617/2026

¶13

Between:

¶14

DUGGINENI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURE,C/O KONJETI BUILDERS, BESIDE SIVA SAI PROVISIONS,OPPOSITE TO VIJAYA GANESH NILAYAM,JOURNALIST COLONY, M.M. DONKA, ONGOLE TOWN,PRAKASAM DISTRICT A.P-523 002,

¶15

...PETITIONER

¶16

AND

¶17

BODDU RADHA RANI, W/O. ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSEMAKER,R/O. BRUNDAVAN NAGAR, ONGOLEPRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P- 523 001.

¶18

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, APHC,THROUGH THE SHO, ONGOLE TALUKA POLICE STATIONPRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P- 523 001,

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD

¶22

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.PATHI SIVA PRASAD

¶25

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶26

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:

¶27

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused seeking to set aside the Calendar and Judgment dated 09.03.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2024 passed by learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole, which confirmed the Calendar and Judgment dated 07.11.2024 in C.C.No.146 of 2018 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶28

I.A.No.2 of 2026 has been filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 seeking permission to compromise the case.

¶29

I.A. No. 3 of 2026 has been filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.1

¶30

seeking to record the compromise entered into between the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 and the Respondent/Petitioner/Accused in the present case.

¶31

Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, reported no objection to record the compromise.

¶32

A Joint Memo has also been filed affixing the signatures of the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 as well as their respective Counsels. The

¶33

¶34

Petitioner and Respondent No.1 have amicably settled the matter out of Court in terms of the mutual understanding arrived at between them.

¶35

In view of the settlement of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, Prakasam District, in C.C. No. 146 of 2018, dated 07.11.2024, as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2024, dated 09.03.2026, by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole, are hereby set aside. Hence, the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶36

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, aged about 60 years, is a small peasant and is unable to bear the costs as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H¹ observed that for compounding an offence under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Revisional Court, i.e., the High Court, the Petitioner is required to pay a certain amount towards costs. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain² relaxed the rigor of the judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu supra

¶37

and observed that in appropriate cases, matters can be compounded at the revision stage either on payment of minimal costs or by waiving the costs in suitable cases.

¶38

1 (2010) 5 SCC 663

¶39

2 (2014) 10 SCC 690

¶40

¶41

Considering the financial conditions of the Petitioner, the payment of

¶42

costs is waived.

¶43

Accordingly, the I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 are allowed, and the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

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

¶45

_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶46

Date: 09.07.2026 PRA

¶47

Whether the order is :

¶48

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

¶49

¶50