APHC010728482012 WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 929/2012 Between: Pyla Hemasundara Rao The State of A P Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: APHC010728482012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.No.1 of 2018 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 929/2012 Pyla Hemasundara Rao ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: [3521] THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT ORDER: The revision was preferred against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam District whereunder the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam District had confirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali, Srikakulam District in CC.No.32 of 2005. Pending the revision case, I.A.No.1 of 2018 has been filed to record the compromise between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, compound the offence and acquit the petitioner for the offences charged against him. Along with the application, copy of the Award dated 13.02.2016 passed by the Lok-Adalat Bench, Tekkali, Srikakulam District in M.C.No.2 of 2006 is also enclosed. 2. I have perused the Lok-Adalat Award in which the terms of compromise were clearly reduced into writing and the matter was compromised between the parties. The petitioner had paid Rs.60,000/- to the de facto complainant towards full and final settlement of the matter. 3. I.A.No.1 of 2018 is accompanied with the joint memo signed by the petitioner herein and the de facto complainant. In the joint memo, it was mentioned that the case was compromised between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. As per the joint memo filed by both the parties along with their counsels, it was mentioned that the petitioner and de facto complainant intended to lead peaceful life separately. 4. Along with the I.A., the learned counsel for the petitioner also filed a copy of the FIR in Crime No.109/2017 dated 18.07.2017, Tekkali Police Station, Srikakulam District, which was registered for the offence under Section 498-A, 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. In this FIR, it was mentioned that the de facto complainant Polaki Suseela committed suicide and therefore, the father of the de facto complainant lodged a report with the police. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Duvvu Raja Sekhar @ Raju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2019 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8512 of 2015] dated 15.01.2019 whereunder the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that Section 320(4)(b) stipulates that when the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this Section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of such person may, with the consent of the Court compound the offence. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court permitted the parties to enter into compromise and in terms of Section 320(2) read with 320(4)(b) and Section 320(b) the conviction of appellants therein under Section 325 of IPC was set aside and the appellants were acquitted. 6. In this matter also, since the Joint Memo was filed by the de facto complainant and petitioner, duly signed by them along with learned counsel for both the parties stating that matter was compromised before the Lok-Adalat, Tekkali by way of the petitioner paying Rs.60,000/- to the de facto complainant, the compromise is recorded. 7. In view of the above reasons, I.A.No.1 of 2018 is allowed. As a result the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as compromised and the conviction and sentence imposed in CC.No.32 of 2005 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali, as confirmed by learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam District in Crl.A.No.3 of 2009 is set aside and the end result is, the petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 493, 417, 420 and 506(1) of IPC. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 29.01.2025 TJN 228 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 929/2012 29.01.2025 TJN