1 APHC010173492019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2026 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 642/2019 Between: T. Shiva and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: I.A.No.2 of 2026 The application is filed seeking permission to permit the petitioner to compromise the case. 2. The learned Trial Court acquitted the petitioners of the charge under Section 461 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’) but 2 convicted them of the offence under Section 380 read with Section 511 of ‘the I.P.C’, and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. The learned Appellate Court, in Crl.A.No.233 of 2017, confirmed the same. I.A.No.3 of 2026 3. The application is filed along with a joint memo, counter-signed by the petitioners and the respondent, as well as their respective learned counsel. It is stated in the joint memo and the accompanying affidavits that, at the intervention of the well-wishers of both sides and family members, the matter has been amicably settled out of Court, and that due to a misunderstanding, the case came to be registered against the petitioners. 4. The learned Appellate Court also confirmed the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court. The offence charged is non- compoundable. The petitioners are first-time offenders and there are no adverse criminal antecedents against them. Since the offence is non- compoundable, it cannot be compounded under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’). 5. However, in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, and inasmuch as the 2nd respondent himself has stated in the affidavit that, owing to a misunderstanding, he was constrained to lodge the complaint against the petitioners. It is also pertinent to note that the charge is not for an offence punishable under Section 380 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ which relates to theft in a dwelling house, but for an attempt to commit theft in a dwelling house. 3 6. In view of the above, the I.A.Nos.2 and 3 are allowed. Consequently, this Court, by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ quashes the proceedings in C.C.No.155 of 2013 dated 27.04.2013 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Tuni, East Godavari District as well as the proceedings in Crl.A.No.233 of 2017 dated 12.06.2019 on the file of the learned XII Additional Sessions Judge at Pithapuram, East Godavari District. 7. Accordingly, the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 31.01.2026 KMS 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.642 of 2019 Date: 31.01.2026 KMS 85