IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY I.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2021 in/and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2594 of 2018 and I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021 in/and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2702 of 2018 I.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2021 in/and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2594 of 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2594 of 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment passed in S.C.No.29/2016, dated 17.09.2018 on the file of the court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. Between; 1. K. Chakradhar Reddy @ Chakradhar Reddy, S/o. K. Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. D. No. 25/A, MK Naidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. K. Reddemma, W/o. K. Chakradhar Reddy, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o.D.No.25/A, MK Naidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Between; P Babu Khan, S/o.P.Jabbar Khan, aged about 43 years, Occ; PD Agent, R/o.D.No.1-150, Mallangunta Village, Chiguruwada Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner/PWI AND K. Chakradhar Reddy @ Chakradhar Reddy, S/o. K. Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about 53 Years, Occ; Govt. Teacher, R/o. D. No. 25/A, MK Naidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 1. K. Reddemma, W/o. K. Chakradhar Reddy, Aged about 45 Years, Occ; R/0.D.N0.25/A, MK Naidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, 2. House wife, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Respondents/Appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Tiruchanur Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravathi. 3. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to compound the offence in Crl.A.No.2594 of 2018 pending before this Hon'ble Court filed aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in SC.No.29 of 2016, dated 17.09.2018 by taking consideration of the settlement of dispute outside the Court and by acquitting the Appellants. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: 1. K. Chakradhar Reddy @ Chakradhar Reddy, S/o. K. Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. D. No. 25/A, MK Naidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. K. Reddemma, W/o. K. Chakradhar Reddy, Aged about 45 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o.D.No.25/A, MK Naidu Colony, Sainagar Panchayth, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Respondents/Appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Tiruchanur Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Amaravathi. 2. P. Babu Khan, S/o.P.Jabbar Khan, aged about 43 years, Occ; PD Agent R/o.D.No.1-150, Mallangunta Village, Chiguruwada Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise between the parties in Crl.A.No.2594 of 2018 pending before this Hon'ble Court filed aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in SC.No.29 of 2016, dated 17.09.2018 by taking consideration of the settlement of dispute outside the Court and by acquitting the Appellants. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Counsel for the Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2021: Ms.V. Sesha Kumari Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021 in/and CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2702 of 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2702 of 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment passed in S.C.No.29/2016, dated 17.09.2018 on the file of the court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. Between: 1. G. Srinivasulu Reddy @ Gajjala Seen Reddy, S/o.G.Subba Reddy, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Peddakantivaripalli, H/o. Motuvaripalli, KV Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. Y. Phanindra Reddy, S/o.Ramamohan Reddy, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Mahal Yerradiddi Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. M. Jyotji Kumar, S/o.Late Muni Chandra, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Garnimitta, KV Palli Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Appellants/Accused Nos.3 to 5 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Between: P Babu Khan, S/o.P.Jabbar Khan, aged about 43 years, Occ: PD Agent, R/o.D.No.1-150, Mallangunta Village, Chiguruwada Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner/PW1 AND G. Srinivasulu Reddy @ Gajjala Seen Reddy, S/o.G.Subba Reddy, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Peddakantivaripalli, H/o. Motuvaripalli, KV Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District. Y. Phanindra Reddy, S/o.Ramamohan Reddy, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Mahal Yerradiddi Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District. M. Jyotji Kumar, S/o.Late Muni Chandra, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Garnimitta, KV Palli Mandal, Chittoor District. 1. 2. 3. ...RespQndents/Appellants/A3 to 5 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 4. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to compound the offence in Crl_A.No.2702 of 2018 pending before this Hon'ble Court filed aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in SC.No.29 of 2016, dated 17.09.2018 by taking consideration of the settlement of dispute outside the Court and by acquitting the Appellants. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: 1. G. Srinivasulu Reddy @ Gajjala Seen Reddy, S/o.G.Subba Reddy, Occ; Cultivation, R/o Peddakantivaripalli, H/o. Motuvaripalli, KV Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. Y. Phanindra Reddy, S/o.Ramamohan Reddy, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Mahal Yerradiddi Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. M. Jyotji Kumar, S/o.Late Muni Chandra, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Garnimitta, KV Palli Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Respondents/Appellants/A3 to 5 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 2. P Babu Khan, S/o.P.Jabbar Khan, aged about 43 years, Occ: PD Agent, R/o.D.No.1-150, Mallangunta Village, Chiguruwada Panchayath Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ...Respondents/Complainant (PW1) Petition under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased please to record the compromise between the parties in CrI.A.No. 2702 of 2018 pending before this Hon'ble Court filed aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in SC.No.29 of 2016, dated 17.09.2018 by taking consideration of the settlement of dispute outside the Court and by acquitting the Appellants. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Counsel for the Petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2021: Ms.V. Sesha Kumari Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY I.A.Nos.l of 2021 & 2 of 2021 in/and Crl.A.No.2594 of 2018 and I.A.Nos.1 of 2021 & 2 of 2021 in/and Crl.A.No.2702 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT : Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.2594 of 2018 are A.1 and A.2, and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.2702 of 2018 are A.3 to A.5, in Sessions Case No.29 of 2016 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. They filed the respective Criminal Appeals, challenging judgment, dated 17.09.2018 in the said Sessions Case whereby they are convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 384, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C.’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the I.P.C.; two years for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the I.P.C.; six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C., and six months for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with 34 of the I.P.C.. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 11.10.2018, was pleased to enlarge the appellants herein on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two ^'■'■'^■'^0.2594 & 2702 ofms Of the V Additional sureties each for the like Magistrate of First Class, sum to the satisfaction Tirupati, Chittoor District. Judicial 3. When the Bench of this Court offence punishable case came up for hearing 11.02.2025, Hon'ble Division were convicted for the expressed that sisince the appellants under Section 364A of the l.p.c. and sentenced to years, it is desirable that undergo a Single Judge rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten has to hear these appeals. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de-facto Tirupati Rural Mandal. Tiruchanur Branch. complainant P.Babu He was working On 18.05.2013 standing in front of a Khan is a resident of MallanguntaViiiage as Pigmy Deposit Agent i - in Syndicate Bank noon, when the de-facto at about 12.00 cool drink shop de-facto complainant On that, four complainant was near Bank, the accused tried to kidnap him and due to efar, the Branch Manager, Syndicate ran into the cabin of the Bank. accused went into the bank catching hold of his and dragged the de-facto shirt and forcibly kidnapped and put him in Innova complainant him by car bearing car in area where they and left him in out of the Bank by heating him with hands and kicking with legs registration No.PY-01-BS-3456. The said Innova car followed another him to forest which A1 and A2 were sitting and they took signatures on ten blank extracted his si the forest non-judicial stamp papers extortion, the complainant. The area and absconded. At the time of accused also took motive for the away the cell phone belonging to the de-facto 3 SRK,J Crl.A.No.2594 & 2702 of 2018 offence is previous enmity with regard to the land dispute between the de-facto complainant and the accused. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that an offence punishable under Section 364A of the I.P.C. would not attract as against the appellants herein for the reason that there is no demand for any ransom from 5. the appellants herein. He further submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter and filed joint memos and affidavits in the interlocutory applications. 6. Today, both the defacto complainant and the accused are present before the Court. They are identified by both the counsel. They produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. This Court examined the defacto complainant with regard to the compromise. He submits that there was no threat or coercion from any corner in compromising the matter. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant is also present. She too categorically stated that both the parties entered into compromise. 7. In respect of the submission that the offence under Section 364A of the I.P.C. would not attract against the appellants herein, this Court perused the record. PW1, as on the date of the alleged incident i.e. on 18.05.2013, was present in Syndicate Bank according to him. He got out of the Bank to have a cool drink at nearby cool drink shop. It is alleged that A2 to A6 got entry into the bank and requested the Manager to send the defacto complainant, out in order to 4 ^ , SRK, J Crl.A.No.2594 & 2702 of 2018 complainant expressed that he have negotiations wi had to deposit the out. Thereupon, about 10 ™th him. On that, the defacto money and once the amount is deposited, he would be persons entered into the bank coming and forced the defacto complainant by dragging him came to his rescue, A3 to entrance of the bank. Thereafter, at the entranoe of the bank. When the bank A6 forced him to board i staff a white car parked at the are alleged to have taken him in the accused to a nearby forest wherein the defacto papers in the complainant was made to sign on some accused Nos.1 & 2. Thereafter, the presence of r complainant was left at the forest complainant had walked from Auto and returned to his police. defacto place. The defacto and all the accused left the the forest area to the main road lodged Ex.PI and boarded an house, and thereafter. -report before the 8. In the cross- he gave all the examination, the defacto names of the accused i also mentioned in the evidence. complainant categorically stated i e. A2 to A6 in Ex.P1, that and the same mentioned that he has names of A2 to A6 in Ex.P1. it has been were He further no acquaintance with the some unknown persons defacto complainant. The defacto mentioned that entered the bank on 18.05.2013 and took away the he knows the complainant further submits that in whose presence, he accused Nos.1 & 2 and i pertinent to mention here complainant have been handed itself. Learned was made to sign on papers. It is were signed by the defacto in the year 2018 defacto complainant that the papers which over to the defacto complainant i counsel appearing on behalf of the too 5 SRKJ Crl.A.No.2594 & 2702 of 2018 concurs with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the papers have been handed over. In order to attract an offence under Section 364A of the I.P.C., it is essential that there should be a kidnap of a person and there should be a demand for ransom. Section 364 A of the I.P.C. reads as follows: 9. “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization or any other person to do abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. ” or A perusal of the said provision goes to show that there are three stages in commission of an offence punishable under Section 364A IPC viz. kidnapping or abduction of a person and keeping him in detention; threat to cause death or hurt and the use of kidnapping, abduction or detention with a demand to pay ransom, and when the demand is not met, then causing death. 10. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no demand for ransom except stating that the defacto complainant was made to sign on certain papers. It is not the case of the prosecution or the appellants that the papers which were signed by the defacto complainant were made use, by the appellants. The papers which were signed by the defacto complainant were returned back to the defacto complainant. When such is the case, there is any amount of ambiguity whether the offence under Section 364A of the I.P.C. would attract or not as against the 6 SRK,J 2702 of 2018 by the appellants Crl.A.No.2594 8t appellants in the absence of confining the defacto an instant threat of death any ransom being demanded complainant with threat or of death or hurt, person from the appellants. Of that there was to the kidnapped 11. A perusal of the forcibly taken by the he was left scot free, offence under Section appellants herein, the offence imprisonment up to 7 parties have Court, in the event, again. evidence goes to show that the defacto complainant "as made to sign on certain was appellants and he papers and in such cicircumstances, this Court i 364 A of the l.p.c. 's of the opinion that the '^ould not attract as against the 'Within the purview of punishable with said facts, since all the The act of the punishable under Section years and fine. accused would fall 365 IPC. which is irrespective of the compromised and when they are living and harmony, this passes an order of sentence, the old flames vvould flare parties settled the voluntarily. This Court is The defacto disputes amicably and he up complainant gave affidavit that the entered into compromise satisfied with regard to voluntariness foe joint memo and affidavit foe order of conviction entering into the being filed, this Court and sentence i in compromise. In view of case to set-aside herein. deems it a fit mposed on the appellants 12. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 ' A.Nos.I of 2021 Resultantly. the Criminal °f2021 and 2 of 2021 fo Crl.A.No.2594 of 2018 of 2018 and and 2 of 2021 i'n Crl.A.No.2702 are allowed, aside the Judgment Appeals are allowed by setting 7 SRK,J Crl.A.No.2594 & 2702 of 2018 dated 17.09.2018, passed in S.C.No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To Sessions Judge, Tirupati Magistrate, Tirupati 3. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Tirupati, Chittoor District. imaravl4oUT^"“'‘= High Court of Andhra 5. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Ms. V. Sesha Kumari, Advocate [OPUC] Amafavathr Section, High Court of Andhra 8. Three CD Copies Chittoor Chittoor Pradesh Pradesh at TK andK.l'’offo2!?n°2To2 oiaoTs HIGH COURT TK DATED:26/03/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT L.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2071 in/and CRIMImai and appeal No.2fiQ2i in/and CRIMImal appfai ot^-, LA.Nos.1 & 2 nf 7n7-i i of 2018 NO..702 o, ..,s MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL PETITION (UNDER SECTION 320 OF Cr.P.C) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHI2A PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI OF 2020 I.A.NO. IN CRL.A.NO. 2594^ OF 2018 Between: K. Chakradhar Reddy @ Chakradhar Reddy, S/o. K. Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about 48 Years, R/o. D. No. 25/A, MK Naidu Colony Sainagar Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District K. Reddemma, W/o. K. Chakradhar Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. D. No. 25/A, MK Naidu Colony Suinagar Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District 1. 2. .. Appellants/A 1 & 2. And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Tiruchanur P.S., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Judicature at Amaravathi. 1. P. Babu Khan, S/o. P. Jabbar Khan, Aged about 43 Years, Occ: PD Agent, R/o. D. No. 1-150, Mallangunta\Tllage, Chiguruwada Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. .. Respondents/Complainant.(PWl) JOINT MEMO OF COMPROMISE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPALLENTS/ACCUSED No.l & 2 AND THE 2"dRESPONDENT It is submitted that basing on the report given by the 2"'^ respondent herein and the same was registered as in FIR No. 108 of 2013 of Tiruchanur Police 1) Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District for the for the offence U/Sec. 364-A, 323, 384, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. After investigation the Police filed the charge sheet against Respondents/Appellants herein and three others, magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session and the same is of 201i^,.,-on the file of the Family Court-cum- Vth The learned numbered as SC No. 29 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor-District. It is submited that by an Order dated 1^09.2018 the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, convicted the Appellants herein and three others for the offence U/sec 364-A, 323, 384 and Section 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. and accordingly they were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 each and in default to pay fine SI for 3 months each U/sec 364-A I.P.C. and further sentenced to 2 years for the 2) T /X. 0.1 fence punishable U/sec 384 Oflence U/sec 323 I.P.c U/sec 506 I.P.C. and further sentenced to 6 months for the months for the offen and furth er sentenced to 6 r/w 34 I.P.c. All the sentences shall conviction and ce the said same is run concurrently. Aggrieved above by sentence the re this Hon'ble Court. appellants filed the pending befo appeal and the 3) It is further submitted that at the intervention amicably and sides the of the elders of the both compromise between to set aside the matter was settled parties, the 2nd Respondent as per the the conviction and session appeal filed by pending before this Hon’ble herein have no objection passed in SC.NO.29 of Judge, Tirupathi, Appellant 2016 on the file of the V Additional District the Chittoor District s vide Criminal Appeal hy allowing Mo. 2594 of 2018 the Court. 4) It further submitted may be please that in order to meet the ends of justice offences the offences compoundable in reported in amicabD set aside the submitted that the not affect the Public to compounded, though the view of the guidelines i are not -s issued in Gian Sing having regard V. The State of Punjab 2012 10 see 303 settled their to the fact that the parties have disputes and the conviction passed by the Qffence complainant have objection to session judge. It is further no learned s are entirely personal m nature and do Hence, the conviction and compromise and would peace, on account of sentence may be please secure the ends of justice. to compound Hence the Petitioners record the pending before this sentence are hereby compromise betw prays that this Hon’ble please to Court een the parties m CrLA.No. 2594 filed niay be of 2018 Hon’ble Court SC.NO.29 aggrieved by the passed in consideration of the conviction and of 2016, dated 17.09.20i|_ by settlement of disput taking and by acquitting e outside the Court the Appellants and deem fit and pass such other or orders circumstances of the as this Hon’ble Cour proper in the ci t as may case. -d^PpSTnt Counsel for Appellants/Accused 1. U V' Counsel for e Reiipondent No. 2 Defactocomplainant(PW 1) 71 MEMOR^NO (UNDER^CTIO>^«^r/w 3 UM qii:-eKiMiNAL 3'i-o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI TIO OPoefTp.c) I.A.NO. OF 2020 IN CRL.A.NO. 2702 OF 2018 Between: 1. G. Srinivasulu Reddy @ Gajjala Seen Reddy, S/o. G. Subba Reddy, aged about 27 years, R/o. Peddakantivaripalli, H/o. Motuvaripalli, K.V. Palli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District. Y. Phanindra Reddy, S/o. Rama Mohan Reddy, Aged about 28 Years, R/o. Mahal Yerradiddipalli, Kalikiri Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. 3. M. Jyothi Kumar, S/o. Late Muni Chandra, Aged about 23 years, R/o. Garnimitta, KV Palli Mandal, Chittoor District. And .. Appellants/A 3 to 5. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Tiruchanur P.S., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Judicature at Amaravathi. 2. P. Babu Khan, S/o. P. Jabbar Kl;an, Aged about 43 Years, Occ: PD Agent, R/o. D. No. 1-150, MallanguntaVillage, Chiguruwada Panchayath, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. JOINT MEMO OF QOMPROMISE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPALLENTS/ACCUSED No.3 to ^AND THE S^dRESPONDENT .. Respondents/Complainant.( PW 1) 1) It is submitted that basing on the report given by the 2 and the same was registered nd respondent herein in FIR No. 108 of 2013 of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District for the for the offence 384, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. After investigation the Police filed the as U/Sec. 364-A, 323, charge sheet against Respondents/Appellants herein and two others (case against A6 spilt up as PRC number 32 of 2015). The learned magistrate committed the the Court of Session and the same is numbered as SC No. 29 of 201£ file of the Family Court-cum- Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. case to on the 2) It IS submited that by an Order dated 13.09.2018 the learned Additional District V and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, convicted the Appellants herein and two others for the offence U/sec 364-A, 323, 384 and Section 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. and accordingly they sentenced to undergo R1 for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 each and in default to were pay fine SI for 3 sentenced to 2 years for the months each U/sec 364-A I.P.C. and further offence punishable U/sec 384 I.P.C. and further sentenced to 6 months for the Offence U/sec 323 I.P.C and further sentenced to 6 months for the offence U/sec 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the appellants filed the above appeal and the same is pending before this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that at the intervention of the elders of the both sides the matter was settled amicably and as per the compromise between the parties, the 2'^<^ Respondent herein have no objection ro set aside the conviction passed in SC.NO.29 of 2016 on the file of the V Additional District and session Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District by allowing the appeal filed by the Appellants vide Criminal Appeal No. 2702 of 2018 pending before this Hon’ble Court. 3) It further submitted that in order to meet the ends of justice the offences may be please to compounded, though the offences are not compoundable in view of the guidelines issued in Gian Sing v. The State of Punjab reported in 2012 10 see 303 having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the complainant have no objection to set aside the conviction passed by the learned session judge. It is further submitted that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the Public peace. Hence, the conviction and sentence ma3^ be please to compound on account of compromise and would secure the ends of justice. 4) Hence the Petitioners are hereby" prays that this Hon’ble Court may be please to record the compromise between the parties in CrLA.No. 2702 of 2018 pending before this Hon’ble Court filed aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed in SC.NO.29 of 2016, dated 17.09.2018 by taking consideration of the settlement of dispute outside the Court and by acquitting the Appellants and pass such other or orders as this Hon’ble Court as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the'^ppellants Appellants/Accused 1. 2. 3. No. 2 v- Counsel Defacto complainant (PWl)