APHC010707142015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.No.01 of 2026 In&and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1113/2025 Between: MENDI KRISHNA MURTHY, E.G.DT.,, S/O.GANIYYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETD.EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.70-15-92/1, UNITED PRAYER HAIL, GODARIGUNTA, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. EDARA SATYANARAYANA CHOWDARY EG DT ANR REP PP, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCU:BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.69-3-33/4, VS RAJU COLONY,IGAIGOLUBADU, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY PUBLIC PROFECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. KARANKI YASWANTH 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: I.A.No.01 of 2026 The application is filed seeking to compromise the case. A joint memo is also filed by the respondent/Appellant/Complainant and revision petitioner/Respondent/Accused for compromise. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the joint memo and affidavit, the petition is allowed permitting the respondent/Appellant/Complainant and revision petitioner/Respondent/Accused to compromise the case. Accordingly, the I.A.No.01 of 2026 is allowed. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H1 observed that for compounding an offence under the provisions of ‘the N.I. 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. 1 (2010) 5 SCC 663 2 (2014) 10 SCC 690 3 4. The petitioner submits that he has compromised the matter with the 1st respondent and has paid Rs.70,000/- as awarded by the learned Appellate Court towards compensation. 5. In view of the above, I.A. No.01 of 2026 is allowed, permitting both parties to compromise the case. Respondent No.1 is permitted to compound the offence with the petitioner. 6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by compounding the offence. The judgment dated 15.06.2015 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada, reversing the judgment dated 21.12.2012 in C.C. No.224 of 2012 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District, is hereby set aside. The petitioner/accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ in view of the compromise. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 23.04.2026 RSI 4 159 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1113 OF 2015 Dated:23.04.2026 RSI