B. Pullaiah And Another, v. Pattem Surya Prakash Rao And State, Rep. By Pp.,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO I.A.No.1 of 2018 in/and Criminal Revision Case No.47 of 2006 ORDER:

The revision petitioners along with their counsel Sri K.Suresh Reddy and 1st respondent along his counsel P.Vengala Reddy present. Both the parties submitted a compromise memo. 2) In C.C.No.2241 of 2001, the revision petitioners/A1 and A2 were convicted by X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad for the offence under Section 500 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Crl.A.No.160 of 2005 on the file of Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cumVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad and the said Court in its judgment dated 30.12.2005 dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence to six months.

Hence, the instant Crl.R.C.

at the instance of petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2.

3) Pending Crl.R.C., the parties have filed the compromise petition seeking permission of the Court to compound the offence. Under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 500 IPC is compoundable one. In that view of the matter, permission is accorded as prayed for.

4) On enquiry, both the parties submitted that they have compounded the offence. The 1st respondent/complainant would submit that he has no objection for allowing the Crl.R.C. and setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners in C.C.No.2241 of 2001.

5) In view of compounding the offence at the instance of the parties, the Crl.R.C. is allowed and conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court in C.C.No.2241 of 2001 is set aside. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 06.03.2018 Murthy