1 APHC010314862022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 In&and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 469/2022 Between: Gudepuvalasa Satish, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: I.A.No.1 of 2025 The application is filed seeking permission to take on record the joint affidavit filed by the petitioner for compromising the matter. 2. Heard both. 3. The I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed. 2 I.A.No.2 of 2025 4. The application is filed accompanying an affidavit by the petitioner that the case in between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was compromised. Therefore, the Petitioner/Accused is permitted to withdrawn the deposited amount credited in C.C.No.213 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram. The case between the petitioner and 2nd respondent has been compromised. The petitioner has paid Rs.1,00,000/- in kind of cash. Accordingly, the I.A.No.2 of 2025 is allowed permitting the petitioner to withdraw the deposited amount. I.A.No.3 of 2025 5. A joint memo has been filed stating that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. In view of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, I.A. No.3 of 2025 is allowed, and the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised by compounding the offence. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram, in C.C. No.1015 of 2018, dated 18.11.2021, as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2021, dated 27.06.2022, by the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, are set aside. As a result, the petitioner is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has financially crippled to pay costs as mandated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. 3 Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H 1 observed that for compounding an offence under the provisions of the NI Act before the revisional Court, i.e., the High Court, the petitioner is required to pay a certain amount towards costs. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain2 relaxed the rigor of the judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu supra and observed that in appropriate cases, matters can be compounded at the revision stage either on payment of minimal costs or by waiving the costs in suitable cases. 7. Considering the financial conditions of the petitioner, the payment of costs is waived. 8. In view of the above, I.A. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed, permitting both parties to compromise the case. Respondent No.2 is permitted to compound the offence with the petitioner 9. Accordingly, the I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed, and the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.12.2025 KMS 1 (2010) 5 SCC 663 2 (2014) 10 SCC 690 4 150 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 469 OF 2022 17.12.2025 W KMS