Sunkara Venkateswara Rao, v. State Of A.P.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.722 of 2014 AND CRL.R.C.M.P.No.2555 of 2015 Between:

Sunkara Venkateswara Rao ..... PETITIONER-A1 AND 1.State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.

Hyderabad.

2.Sunkari Lakshmi Mani Kumari .....RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 12.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL 1.

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 2.

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL CRL.R.C.No.722 of 2014 AND CRL.R.C.M.P.No.2555 of 2015 JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 02.04.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.42 of 2012, whereby the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, while dismissing the said appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, in C.C.No.28 of dated 31.01.2012.

On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, in C.C.No.28 of 2011, found the revision petitioner-A1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. However, the revision petitioner-A1 was acquitted of the offences under Section 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

In an appeal being Crl.A.No.42 of 2012 preferred by the revision petitioner-A1 against the aforesaid conviction

and sentence, the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Amalapuram, by judgment dated 02.04.2014, dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-A1 preferred this criminal revision. On 11.08.2015, the 2nd respondent-complainant filed CRl.R.C.MP.No.2555 of 2015 seeking to compound the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and acquit the revision petitioner-A1 since the parties have arrived at a compromise and the same was reduced into writing. Today, the 2nd respondent-complainant, who was examined, as P.W.1, and the revision petitioner-A1 along with their Counsel are present before this Court. This Court when questioned the 2nd respondent-complainant, she stated that the matter has been settled amicably and she is no longer interested in pursuing the case and, therefore, the offence charged against the revision petitioner-A1 may be compounded.

After hearing the learned Counsel for both sides as well as both the parties, this Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the disputes amicably.

In the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties and as the offence alleged against the revision petitioner-A1 is compoundable, the joint compromise memo filed by both the parties is recorded and Crl.Rc.MP.No.2555 of 2015 is ordered and the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. is compounded.

The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner-A1 by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C., as confirmed by the appellate Court, are hereby set aside and the revision petitioner-A1 is acquitted of the said offence. Fine amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner-A1 shall be refunded to him. _________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J 12-08-2015 Gsn