APHC010704102010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.No.1 and 2 of 2025 In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 621/2016 Between: P.Krishna Murthy ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of AP Rep. by PP B.Venu Gopal ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment dated 20.01.2016 passed in Crl.A. No.124 of 2015, on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, confirming the Judgment dated 27.04.2015, passed in S.T.C.No.64 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner. 2. Heard Mr.P.Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Mr.Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed to permit the petitioner to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I.Act’) in view of the settlement arrived at in between the disputed parties. 4. Section 138 of ‘the N.I. Act.,’ is compoundable as per Section 147 of ‘the N.I. Act.’ This compoundability is permissible at any stage of the case; it may be during the trial or appeal or revision under Section 320 (6) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’, or at any later stage. 5. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed to record the compromise between the parties and set aside the impugned Judgments and acquit the petitioner/accused. 6. In view of the fact that the matter was compromised and compounded in between the parties, the revision case can be disposed of as compromised since in I.A.No.1 of 2005 the defacto complainant is permitted to compound the offence under Section 320 (6) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’, and Section 147 of ‘the N.I. Act.’ 7. Even though the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H 1 ordered for payment of certain amount towards costs for compromising the case, this Rule was relaxed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1 (2010) 5 SCC 663 Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain And Anr2. 8. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromise and compounded. As a result, the Judgment dated 20.01.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.124 of 2015 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Chittoor and Judgment dated 27.04.2015, passed in S.T.C.No.64 of 2013, on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palamaner, FAC Special Magistrate, Palamaner, are set aside. The petitioner herein is acquitted under Section 320 (8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 20.03.2025 M K K 2 (2014) 10 SCC 690