IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A Nos.1.2and3of 2025 In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3090 OF 2017 Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment dt. 24.11.2017 passed in CrI.A No.33 of 2016 on the file of the court of Learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence against the petitioner by modifying the Calendar and Judgment dt. 27.01.2016passed in C.C.No.357 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Learned First Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Between: Raavi Mahesh, S/o. Rama Raju, aged 27 years. Residing at Power Station, Kanthuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/1 Accused AND 1. The State of Anhdra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...Respondent 2. Pothana Srinivas, S/o. Giri Babu, Aged about 32 yrs, R/o. D.No.3-262, Uppulurivari Veedhi, VTC, Kanuru, Krishna District. (Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the Court Order dated 20/03/2025 in I.A No.1 of 2025 in CRLRC No.3090 of 2017) ...Respondent/De-facto Complainant lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS & 482 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 implead me as proposed respondent No. 2 in the main Criminal Revision Case No. 3090 of 2017. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Pothana Srinivas, S/o. Giri Babu, Aged about 32 yrs, R/o. D.No.3-262 Uppulurivari Veedhi, VTC, Kanuru, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/Proposed Respondent/De-facto Complainant AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAmaravati. ...Respondent 2. Raavi Mahesh @ Raavi Mahesh Raju, S/o. Rama Raju, aged 33 years, R/o. H2 36 TF 8, Vambay Colony, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. r ...Respondents/Petitioner/Accused No.1 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 and respondents to compromise the Case and consequently to set aside the Conviction and Sentence passed against the revision petitioner in Crl.A.No.33 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, dated 24.11.2017 there by modified and conformed the Convection and sentence passed in C.C.No.357 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the First Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada dated 27.01.2016 by recording compromise. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Pothana Srinivas, S/o. Giri Babu, Aged about 32 yrs, R/o. D.No.3-262, Uppulurivari Veedhi, VTC, Kanuru, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/Proposed Respondent/De-facto Complainant AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...Respondent 2. Raavi Mahesh @ Raavi Mahesh Raju, S/o. Rama Raju, aged 33 years, R/o. H2 36 TF 8, Vambay Colony, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Respondent/Petitioner/Accused No.1 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 recording compromise in the above and Case and consequently to set aside the Conviction and Sentence passed against the revision petitioner in Crl.A.No.33 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, dated 24.11.2017 there by modified and conformed the Convection and sentence passed in C.C.No.357 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the First Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada dated 27.01.2016. • Joint compromise memo enclosed vide separate sheet Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI ADINARAYANA BOMMARAJU The Court made the following Order: 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 l■A■Nos■1.2and3of 2025 In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3030/2017 Between: Raavi Mahesh ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by P.P ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S); AKURATHI RAMA KRISHNA 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 24.11.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.33 of 2016, on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, partly allowing the conviction and sei-itence vide Judgment dated 27.01.2016, passed in 2 Dr.YLR‘,T Crl.R.C.No.3090 of 2017 Dated 20.03.2025 C.C.No.357 of 2013 on the file of the learned First Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Heard Sri Akurathi Rama Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Adinarayana Bommaraju learned counsel for the 2"'^ respondent. 2. Three applications are filed for: 1) impleading the de-facto complainant/victim as 2"'^ respondent; 2) compromising criminal revision case and 3) setting aside the impugned Judgment. These interlocutory applications are accompanied with affidavits wherein it is submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and 2'^'^ respondent was pacified at the intervention of elders on both sides, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the 2"^ respondent towards compensation and medical expenses. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Judgment dated 3. 4. 24.11.2017, passed in Crl.A.No.33 of 2016 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, has been challenged for convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’) which is compoundable by virtue of the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh\ State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswam^ and Hirabhai Jhaverbhai v. State of Gujaraf. \2008)9SCC 116 ^(1977) 2 see 699 ^2010).6SCC 688 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.3090of 2017 Dated 20.03.2025 5. However, in the instance case, the offence occurred on 27/03/2013. The Amendment to Sec 324 of ‘the IPC was brought into effect from 31.12.2009, making Section 324 of ‘the IPC. as non-compoundable. Therefore, this case cannot be compounded under Section 324 of ‘the IPC.’ The learned trial court found the petitioner/AI guilty for the offence under Section 326 and 341 of ‘the IPC’. Whereas the learned appellate court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 324 ‘the IPC.,’ by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 326 and 341 of ‘the IPC.,’ on the ground that prosecution had not proved grievous injuries on PW1. However, PW7 Medical Officer opined that the injuries sustained by the PW1 are grievous in nature. It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner and other accused bet PW1 with an iron rod on his head. Ironically, the iron rod was not seized by the Investigating Officer, produced before the learned trial court and marked as material object. Therefore, it would be appropriate, in the interest of the Justice, that the conviction 6. recorded under Section 324 of ‘the IPC.,’ should be modified to that of Section 325 of ‘the IPC.,’ since the charge was framed under Section 326 of ‘the IPC.,’ by the learned trial court. When the petitioner is charged with a major offence of Section 326 of ‘the IPC.,’ he can be convicted under Section 325 of ‘the IPC.,’ which is a minor one. 7. Further Section 325 of ‘the IPC.,’ is compoundable as per Section 320 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. Therefore, the application filed for impleading the de-facto complainant/victim as 2 respondent is allowed. The application filed for 4 Dr.YLR^, Crl.R.C.No.3090 of 2017 Dated 20.03.2025 nd compromising criminal revision case is also allowed permitting the 2 respondent to compound the offence with the petitioner under Section 320 (6) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. The application filed for setting aside the impugned judgment is also allowed. In view of the reasons mentioned in the three affidavits accompanying the applications, the Criminal Revision case is disposed of as compromised. 8. As a result, the Judgment dated 24.11.2017, passed in Crl.A.No.33 of 2016 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, is set aside and the Judgment dated 27.01.2016, passed in C.C.No.357 of 2013 9. on the file of learned First Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is also 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. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge: Vijayawada, Krishna District.(with records) 2. The I Metropolitan Magistrate; Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. One CC to Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Adinarayana Bommaraju Advocate [OPUC] f 5. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, Amaravati [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, 7. Three CD Copies High Court of Andhra Pradesh at High Court of Andhra Pradesh. SAM vna * along with compromise memo to the addresses HIGH COURT ^ DATED:20/03/2025 ORDER I.A Nos.1,2and3of 2025 In/And CRLRC.No.3090 of 2017 <j 3 0 APR 2025 Current Seetion fS: Oe: I.A Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 ARE ALLOWED and DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC AS COMPROMISE V. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI CrI.R.C. No. 3090 Of 2017 Between: Raavi Mahesh @ Raavi Mahesh Raju, S/o Ramaraju, Aged 33 Years, R/o H2 36 TF 8, Vambay Cdony, Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/ Accused No.1 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ....Respondent 2. Pothana Srinivas, W/o Giri Babu, Aged about 32yrs, R/o D.No. 3-262, UppulurivariVeedhi, VTC, Kanuru, Krishna District. ...Respondent/ De-Facto Complainant/ Proposed Respondent JOINT MEMO FILED BY BOTH PARTIES We the under sig‘ned, compromised the matter amicably and file petition before this Hon’ble Court and the 2"^^ Respondent has no objection to set aside the Conviction and Sentence passed against the revision petitioner in Crl.A.No.33 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, dated 24.11.2017 there by modified and conformed the Convection and sentence passed in C.C.No.357 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the First Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada dated 27 01.2016, We both signed in this memo with our free will and consent and there is no any coercion or force against us. Hence this memo is filed. ^Cotfnsel for petitioner Amaravati Date; 09.03.2025 j Uv 2"'' Respondent Petitioner ^ Advo^te for 2’'^ Respondent |S Adiv<5bafe for Petitioner