APHC010509062018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1793/2018 I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 in/and Crl.R.C.No.1793 of 2018 Between: Archakam Parthasarathi Satyanarayana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The petitioner/accused and the de-facto complainant/Victim, are present. 2. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the concurrent conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’). 2 3. I.A.No.1 of 2025 has been filed to implead the de-facto complainant/Victim as respondent No.2. In view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh and others v. Ashish Mishra1, the application is required to be considered positively by impleading the de-facto complainant as respondent No.2. 4. In the result, I.A. No.1 of 2025 is allowed. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendments in the petition. 5. I.A.No.2 of 2025 has been filed to permit the petitioner to compromise the case with the respondent No.2. 6. For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit filed in I.A.No.2 of 2025, this I.A.No.2 of 2025 is also allowed, permitting the petitioner to compromise the case with the respondent No.2. 7. I.A.No.3 of 2025 has been filed to compound the offence by setting aside the conviction. This affidavit is attested by the respondent No.2/Hima Bindu. She states in the affidavit that the matrimonial disputes in between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 has been pacified at the intervention of the elders of both sides, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have been living separately by obtaining divorce from the Competent Court. 8. Pursuant to the compromise entered in between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.28 Lakhs towards full and final settlement of maintenance and permanent alimony to the respondent 1 (2002) 4 SCR 536 3 No.2. The daughters of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were given Rs.20 lakhs each towards full and final settlement of maintenance. A Joint memo has been filed with the signatures of the petitioner and the respondent No.2, narrating above facts, and urged to pass appropriate orders. 9. For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit and also the joint memo, I.A.No.3 of 2025 is allowed, permitting the respondent No.2 to compound the case with the petitioner under Section 320 (6) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised, acquitting the petitioner under Section 320 (8) of ‘the Cr.P.C., the conviction and sentence imposed in Crl.A.No.87 of 2017 vide judgment dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, is set aside consequently, the judgment dated 21.04.2017 in C.C.No.150 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, is also set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 06.05.2025 RSI 4 135 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2025 In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1793 of 2018 Date: 06.05.2025 RSI