IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. UAKSHMANA RAO l■A■Nos■2&3 of2n2fi IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2211 OF 2010 Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 14.07.2010 passed in CrI.A.No. 17 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & St (POA) Act- cum-VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. Between: Madiga Jagan, S/o. Madiga Vaddeman Rathanamaiah, agee about 25 years,Pagidyal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Accused / Appellant / Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi 2. Pagadam Usseinamma, W/o. Subbanna, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Pagidyala Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, Now Nandyal District. (Respondent No.2 is impleaded as per the Court order dated 28.04.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.No.2211 of 2010) ...Respondent No.2 / Defacto Complainant (PW1) lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: -i >?i- Pagadam Usseinamma, W/o. Subbanna, Aged about 40 Pagidyala Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, Now Nandyal District. ...Petitioner / 2"*^ Respondent / Defacto Complainant (PW1) •k- years, R/o. AND 1. Madiga Jagan, S/o. Madiga Vaddeman Rathanamaiah years,Pagidyal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. agee about 25 ...Respondent / Petitioner / Accused 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi ...Respondent / Respondent Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S, and 359(b) B.N.S.S 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 compromise the case in Crl.R.C.No.2211 of 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and allow the CrI.R.C. lA NO: 3 OF 2Q2fi Between: Pagadam Usseinamma, W/o. Subbanna, Aged about 40 Pagidyala Village and Mandal, Kurnool District, Now Nandyal District. ...Petitioner / 2"'* Respondent / Defacto Complainant (PW1) years, R/o. AND 1. Madiga Jagan, S/o. Madiga Vaddeman Rathanamaiah, agee about 25 years,Pagidyal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondent / Petitioner / Accused 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi ...Respondent / Respondent Petition under Section 320 (6) BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant permission to the petitioner to compound the offence under Section 354 IPC. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. C PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. M.V. VIJAYADITYA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: APHC010346562010 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: 2211/2010 l■A.Nos■2&3 of 2025 in/and Crl.R.C.No.2211 of 2010 Between: Madiga Jagan ...PETITIONER AND The State Of AP Rep By Its PP Hyd and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.C PRAKASH REDDY ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.M.V. VIJAYADITYA REDDY 2, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The petitioner/accused and the respondent No.2/complainant/P.W.1 , are present. 2. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the concurrent conviction for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 2 (for short the I.P.C’). The learned Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 354 of ‘the IPC.,’ and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. The learned Appellate Court also confirmed the same. 3. I.A.No.2 of 2025 has been filed seeking for permission to compromise the case. The permission petition along with the affidavit containing the signatures of the petitioner and the respondent No.2, is filed. In the affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have compromised the matter before the elders. The petitioner volunteers to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to respondent No.2/victim as a measure of penance. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A.No.2 of 2025 is allowed, permitting the respondent No.2/Complainant to compromise the case with the petitioner. 5. 6. I.A.No.3 of 2025 has been filed to compound the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence for which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced was compoundable as on the date of the commission of the offence in the year-2008. Therefore, it is urged to permit the respondent No.2 to compound the offence with the petitioner. 7. 3 For the reasons mentioned in the petition in I.A.No.3 of 2025, the 8. 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’. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ethartii v. State of Haryana\ wherein at paragraph 9. No.6 held as under: “...We are mindful of the fact that Section 354 IPC is, as of today, non-compoundable. But, as noticed by us. it was cornpoundable when the instant offence was committed with the permission of the Court. Eiven then, we would have hesitated to permit compounding of the offence. But, facts of this case are very peculiar. -[Respondent No. 2 and her husband have, even today, maintained their stand taken in the trial Court that they have entered into a compromise with the appellant. As vi/e have already noted. Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to that effect in this Court. Compromise is, therefore, not an afterthought. Pertinently, the incident in Question took place wav back in the vear-2000. About 13 Iona years have Qorie by. In her affidavit Respondent No.2 has stated that the appellant is her neighbor and they are staying peacefully since 2000 till date. We are of the opinion that since the appellant and Respondent No. 2 are neighbours it would be in the interest of justice to permit the parties to compound the offences. If the conviction is confirmed, the relations may get strained and the peace, which is now prevailing between the two families, may be disturbed." 10. In the instant case, the petitioner and respondent No.2 belong to the same community and are residents of same locality. They have come to the Court along with their spouses. The respondent No.2 got married and is living ^ (2014)4 see 14 happily with her husband. The daughters and has pleaded for leniency, sentence is confirmed, the relations in between the respondent No.2 may get strained, and the between the two families may be disturbed. petitioner submits that he has unmarried Indeed, if the conviction and petitioner and the peace, which now prevailing 11. in another case relied Crl.FTC.No.1212 of 2009, upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i a learned Single Judge of this Court, also in granted permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 354 of ‘the IIF^C.,’ and set aside the conviction and sentence 12. view of the compromise effected between the parties, petitioner volunteering to pay an amount of Rs.25,00Ci/ and the towar'cls compensation to the Victim/Respondent No.2, the revision case can be disposed of as compromised. 13. in the result, the Criminal FTsvision Case iIS disposed of compromised, the conviction and sentence imposed in Cr! A.No.17 of 2009 w'de judgment dated 02.08.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-Cum-V! y^dditional District and as Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is set aside consequently, the judgment dated 09.02,2009 in S.C.No.462 of 2008 on the file of the learned Assistant SSessions Judge Nandikotkur, is also set aside, while acquitting the petitioner under Section 320 (8) ot ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation ot the respondent Mo.2 under Section 357 of ‘the r-- ■ 5 Cr.P.C.,’ within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer six months Rigorous Imprisonment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC & St (POA) Act-cum- VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. (with records) One CC to SRI. C Prakash Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. M.V. Vijayaditya Reddy Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Three CD Copies (Enclosing the joint memo) HIGH COURT DATED:06/05/2025 SfANDH^ r X 0 AUG 2025 ^ . Current Section m Co COMMON ORDER CRLRC.No.2211 of 2010 IN/AND l■A■Nos■2 & 3 of 2025 DISPOSING THECRLRC.No.2211 of 2010 IN/AND I.A.NOS.2&3 of 2025 ^s. V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Crl.R.C.No.2211 of 2010 Between: Madiga Jagan, S/o. Madiga Vaddeman Rathnamaiah, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Pagidyala Village & Mandal, Kurnooi District, Now Nandyal District. ...Respondent/ Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi. 1. 2. Pagadam Usseinamma, W/o. Subbanna, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Pagidyala Village & Mandal Kurnooi District, Now Nandyal Diritrict. ...Respondents JOINT MEMO It is submitted that basing on the report lodged by the 2 respondent herein a case in Crime No.33 of 2008 of Pagidyala Police Station for the alleged offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and the police after due investigation filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as PRC.No.24 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur and the same was taken on file by Sessions Court, Kurnooi as S.C.No.^:52 of 2008 and the same was made over to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur for disposal according to law. It is submitted that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur was pleased to permit the petitioner herein and sentence to suffer R.l. for period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default to under simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 354 IPC by judgment dated 09.02.2009. It is submitted that the petitioner herein preferred appeal being Crl.A.No.17 of 1. no iilagll 2009 and the same was dismissed on 02 08 2010 h„ ,■ ■ Pelilione, fiiep the pressnt tevistee ,,, Ctl R c No 3211 Of this Hon'ble Court and the the aggrieved by the same, the of 2010 on the file same is; Si pending for final hearing. 2- It is submitted that the to Pagidyala Village and locality. It is submitted and blessed with petitioner as well distantly related as respondent belong and are residing in the same that the petitioner and 2^'^' respondent are married their marital life children and leading respective spouses and children, village elders the with their at the instance of respondent intends with the leave of this view of the circumstances It is submitted that matter is compromiised and the 2^^^ to compound the offence under Section 354 IPC on ble Court with her free will and consent. In vi Of the case, the 2"^ respondent and petitioner ■ and set aside the pray this Hon’ble Court to conviction and sentence allow the CrI.R.C S.C.No.462 of 2008 i confirmed by the Sessions Court this Joint Memo. passed in by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur Kurnool in Crl.A.No.17 of 2009 and ■ Hence, It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court ' set aside the c may be pleased to the compromise and record passed in conviction and sentence S-C.No.462 of 2008 confirmed by the Sessions by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur Court, Kurnool in CrI.A.No.l? of 2009 or orders as this Hon’ble Court and and to may deem fit and pass such other order circumstances of the case. / ; • • ■ I^ti(5ieri\ccu2d j Counsel for Petitioner A Counse r Respondent No.2 Amaravathi Date; (^.Ct^.202^