Paidipalli Saidulu, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Through Sub-Inspector Of Police

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO I.A.No.3 of 2019 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2191 of 2005 COMMON ORDER:

I.A.No.3 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner/respondent No.2/de facto complainant to record compromise and compound the offence under Section 354 IPC.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 have not opposed the application in I.A.No.3 of 2019.

4.

In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated by the petitioner/respondent No.2 that she has no intention to proceed with the case and decided to withdraw the Criminal Revision Case. It is also stated that respondent No.1 has also no objection to allow the Criminal Revision Case by way of compromise.

5.

The petitioner and respondent No.1 are present in Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. On interaction with the petitioner, she has stated that at the intervention of elders in the village, they have compromised the matter. Therefore, she decided to withdraw the Criminal Revision Case. Accordingly, a joint memo is also filed to that effect.

6.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that even if the matter is proceeded, no useful purpose would be served, since the parties have

already compromised and the petitioner/respondent No.2 has no objection to allow the Criminal Revision Case. 7.

In these circumstances, I.A.No.3 of 2019 is allowed. Consequently, the judgment, dated 09.12.2005, in Criminal Appeal No.84 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-II), Khammam, is set aside.

8.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J 6th December 2019 mar