APHC010625622008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA I.A. No.1 OF 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 980/2008 Between: 1. PEDDI CHINNA REDDY @ CHINNA AYYAPPA REDDY & 3 OTHERS, S/O.P.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, R/O.KAMANURU VILLAGE, PRODDATURU MANDAL, KADAPA DIST. 2. NANDYAL RAMANANDA REDDY, S/O N.ESWAR REDDY, R/O.KAMANURU VILLAGE, PRODDATURU MANDAL, KADAPA DIST. 3. PEDDI MURALIDHAR REDDY,, S/O PEDDA OBUL REDDY, R/O KAMANURU VILLAGE, PRODDATURU MANDAL, KADAPA DIST. 4. PEDDI PADMANABHA REDDY,, S/O RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, R/O KAMANURU VILLAGE, PRODDATURU MANDAL, KADAPA DIST. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, THROUGH THE S.H.O., PRODDATURU RURAL P.S., KADAPA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. 2. T RAJESWARI, W/O. LATE BHAVANI ESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. KAMANUR VILLAGE, PRODDATUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2025 IN CRL.R.C.NO.980 OF 2008) -2- CRL.R.C. No.980 OF 2008 ...RESPONDENTS Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., against the conviction and sentences imposed by the Judgment dated 30.07.04 in C.C.No.187 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the I Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Proddaturu and confirmed in Judgment dated 02.07.08 in Crl.A.No.70/2004 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddaturu. IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1327 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Judgment dated 30.07.04 in C.C.No.187 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the I Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Proddaturu. IA NO: 2 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1329 OF 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence passed in Judgment dated 30.07.04 in C.C.No.187 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the I Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Proddaturu and confirmed in Judgment dated 02.07.08 in Crl.A.No.70/2004 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddaturu and enlarge the petitioners on bail IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the conviction and sentence, dt.30.7.2004 imposed in C.C.No.187/2002 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur and confirmed in Judgment, dt.2.7.2008 in CrI.A.No.78/2004 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be -3- CRL.R.C. No.980 OF 2008 pleased Pleased to implead the Proposed Respondent No.2 herein as the Party Respondent No.2 in the CrI.R.C.No.980/2 008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: 1. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following common order: 1. I.A. No.1 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners/accused seeking to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dt.30.07.2004 imposed against them in C.C. No.187 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.78 of 2004 on the file of the court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, by judgment dated 02.07.2008. 2. In support of I.A. No.1 of 2025, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent have filed a Joint Memo, wherefrom it is evident that the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the Court. In terms of the settlement, the 2nd respondent, who is the wife of the de facto complainant and one of the prosecution witnesses in the calendar case, agreed to receive a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards full and final settlement. The petitioners/accused have produced Demand Draft No.002543, dated 23.07.2026, for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn in favour of the 2nd respondent, namely, Smt. Dayyala Rajeswari. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of the -4- CRL.R.C. No.980 OF 2008 Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). The offence alleged to have been committed on 15.05.2002. At that time, the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC was compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute and voluntarily filed the Joint Memo, the conviction recorded for the offence under Section 324 IPC is liable to be set aside by recording the compromise between the parties. 4. Learned counsel further submits that though the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable, but this Court is empowered to modify the sentence in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murali v. State represented by Inspector of Police1. 5. He further submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Criminal Revision Case No.2557 of 2011, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Pujan v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh3, modified the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, while taking note of the compromise arrived at between the parties. So, he prayed for necessary orders. 1 (2021) 1 SCC 726 2 (1973) 2 SCC 456 3 AIR 2009 SC 675 -5- CRL.R.C. No.980 OF 2008 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor assisted the Court by placing the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural Police Station, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, who identified the parties to this litigation and present before the Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 8. The 2nd respondent, Smt.Dayyala Rajeswari, who is the wife of the de facto complainant, appeared before this Court in person. On being questioned, she stated that the dispute between herself and the petitioners has been amicably settled in the presence of the village elders. She further stated that she has agreed to receive the Demand Draft for Rs.2,00,000/- produced before this Court towards full and final settlement of all disputes. She categorically stated that she voluntarily signed the Joint Memo of Compromise without any force, coercion, undue influence or pressure. She also expressed that she has no objection if the petitioners are acquitted in the present case. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC was compoundable on the date of the occurrence, i.e., on 15.05.2002. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to compound offence under Section 324 of IPC in recording the compromise entered into between the parties. -6- CRL.R.C. No.980 OF 2008 10. In Murali v. State represented by Inspector of Police (supra1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “7.A Perusal of the applications for impleadment and compounding makes it clear that the parties have on the advice of their elders entered into an amicable settlement. The appellants have admitted their fault, taken responsibility for their actions, and have maturely sought forgiveness from the victim. In turn, the victim has benevolently acknowledged the apology, and considering the young age of the appellants at the time of the incident, has forgiven the appellants and settled the dispute. The learned counsel for the victim applicant has reiterated the same stance during oral hearings also. 8…. 9…. 10. The afore cited view has been consistently followed by this Court including in Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P.4, laying down that: (SCC p.670, paras 13-15) “13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan5, Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar6 and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. 7 this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan 8 such offence was ordered to be compounded. 14. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind. 15. In the instant case, the incident took place before more than fifteen years; the parties are residing in one and the same village and they are also relatives. The appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of commission of crime. It was his first offence. After conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision9 of the High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at present. 4 (2008) 15 SCC 667 5 (2006) 9 SCC 255 6 (2001) 10 SCC 504 7 (2008) 15 SCC 671 8 1990 Supp SCC 681 9 Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P., Crl.A.No.817 of 1994, order dt.11.09.2007 (MP) -7- CRL.R.C. No.980 OF 2008 Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted and he was not released on bail. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant (Accused 1) is reduced to the period already undergone. (emphasis supplied)” 12. Given this position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising out of subsequent events, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsidered the quantum of sentences awarded to the appellants. We say so because: first, the parties to the dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the victim inspires confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity brought about by age. There is no question of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence.” 11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.2557 of 2011, while following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has also taken a lenient view and modified the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC in view of the subsequent settlement arrived at between the parties. 12. From the perusal of the record, it appears that A.4, who is the third petitioner herein, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. It also appears that he has already undergone incarceration for some period during the course of the entire litigation. The matter was settled outside the Court. The offence under Section 326 of IPC is not compounded, but if necessary order showing leniency is not passed by this Court, the settlement arrived at in the village, as well as the existing cordial relations between the parties would be disrupted. To maintain social status quo and equilibrium in -8- CRL.R.C. No.980 OF 2008 the society, I think it is necessary to pass an appropriate order in this matter recording the compromise between the parties. 13. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by modifying the sentence imposed upon A.4 while recording the compromise between the parties. 14. Accordingly, the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is permitted to be compounded and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioners for the said offence is set aside. Insofar as the conviction of A.4/ 3rd petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is concerned, while maintaining the conviction, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him during this entire criminal litigation. 15. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2025 is allowed. Consequently, under the above observation, the criminal revision case is disposed of. 16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.27.07.2026 BV