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 I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 3090/2017 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 sentence of Judgment dated 27.01.2016, passed in C.C.No.357 of 2013 on the file of the learned First Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. Three applications are filed for; 1) impleading the defacto complainant/victim as 2nd 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 2nd respondent was pacified at the intervention of elders on both sides, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the 2nd respondent towards compensation and medical expenses. 4. The Judgment dated 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 1, State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy 2 and Hirabhai Jhaverbhai v. State of Gujarat3. 1 (2008) 9 SCC 116 2 (1977) 2 SCC 699 3 (2010) 6 SCC 688 5. In view of the reasons mentioned in the affidavits accompanying the applications, the Criminal Revision case is disposed of as compromised. 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 also the Judgment dated 27.01.2016, passed in C.C.No.357 of 2013 on the file of learned First Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The petitioner herein is acquitted. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 20.03.2025 M K K