APHC010073272019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 In&and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 289/2019 Between: B. Ravindra ...PETITIONER AND State of AP and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: P Nagendra Reddy Counsel for the Respondent(S): Public Prosecutor (AP) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner and 2nd respondent are present. I.A.No.1 of 2025 3. The I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed by 2nd respondent/wife to compromise the case. As the Petitioner and the 2nd respondent have compromised the matter 2 and decided to leave apart by obtaining divorce and the accused has paid substantial amount towards settlement of the case. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the 2nd respondent is permitted to compound the offence with the Petitioner/Accused. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed, permitting the 2nd respondent to compound the offence with the Petitioner/Accused. I.A.No.2 of 2025 5. The application is filed seeking to compromise the case. A joint memo is also filed by the Petitioner/Accused and 2nd respondent for compromise. 6. For the reasons mentioned in the joint memo and affidavits, the petition is allowed permitting the Petitioner to compromise the case. Accordingly, the I.A.No.2 of 2025 is allowed. 7. In view of the above, I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 are allowed, permitting both parties to compromise the case. Respondent No.2 is permitted to compound the offence with the Petitioner/Accused. 8. Accordingly, the I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 are allowed, and the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised by compounding the offence. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandigama, in S.C.No.388 of 2015, dated 29.03.2016, as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2016, dated 08.03.2019, by the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, are set aside, as a result, the Petitioner/Accused is acquitted. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 31.10.2025 KMS 4 91 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 289 OF 2019 31.12.2025 W KMS