APHC010713262010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 In&And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 409/2010 Between: Kode Seetharamaiah, ...PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradeshrep by Public Prosecutor ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: CH.Ravindra Babu Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: I.A.No.1 of 2025 The application is filed to implead the de-facto complaint as respondent No.2. It is averred in the affidavit accompanying application that the petitioner and de-fact complainant/P.W.1 have compromised the matter. The offence was committed on 03.07.2008. An amendment was introduced and came into force for Section 324 of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’) 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.409 of 2010 Dated 04.04.2025 on 31.12.2009 making the offence under Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is non- compoundable. For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the petition, this petition is allowed permitting the de-facto complainant/petitioner to be added as respondent No.2. I.A.No.2 and 3 of 20025 2. The applications are filed to compromise the case and acquit the petitioner/accused. The offence was taken place on 03.07.2008. The amendment to Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ was brought into force on 31.12.2009 making the offence non-compoundable. This case can be compounded as the offence was committed much before amendment to Section 324 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ came into force. The petitioner in the affidavits submits that the matter between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has been compromised at the behest of the family elders. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are present, they state that they are first cousins. In view of the settlement of the matter in between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the criminal revision case can be disposed of as compromised. The 2nd respondent is permitted to compound the offence with petitioner as per Section 320(6) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. 3. Heard both sides. 4. In the result, I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as compromised by setting aside the 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.409 of 2010 Dated 04.04.2025 judgment in Crl.A.No.407 of 2009 dated 22.01.2010 on the file of the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali and judgment in C.C.No.289 of 2008 06.11.2009 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali. The petitioner/accused No.1 is acquitted under Section 320(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 04.04.2025 KMS 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.409 of 2010 Dated 04.04.2025 153 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 409/2010 04.04.2025 W KMS