K.Hemalatha v. The State Of A.P.,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL Crl.R.C.M.P. No. 78 of 2016 and Criminal Revision Case No. 269 of 2012 Judgment:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 13.02.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2011 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, at Adoni, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioners/A2 to A4 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, vide judgment, dated 06.01.2011, in CC No. 127 of 2007, for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').
2. Now the second respondent-de facto complainant and the petitioners/A2 to A4 filed Crl.R.C.M.P. No.78 of 2016 stating that at the intervention of elders they have amicably settled the matter out of Court and, in view of that, the second respondent-de facto complainant may be permitted to compound the offence and the petitioners/A2 to A4 may be acquitted of the offence under Section 6 of the Act by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on them.
3. The petitioners/A2 to A4 and the second respondent-de facto complainant as well as their counsel are present. The parties have filed a joint memo stating that they have voluntarily compromised the matter and the petitioners/A2 to A4 may be acquitted.
4. It is also stated, across the bar, that for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC another case was registered against the petitioners/A2 and A4 herein and the said case was ended in conviction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/A2 and A4 herein preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2008 on the file of III
Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, which was ended in acquittal. Against the said acquittal judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2008, both the State as well as the second respondent-de facto complainant herein filed appeals and the same were dismissed by this Court on 05.01.2016.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending. In that view of the matter, the compromise is recorded and CrlRCMP No.78 of 2016 is allowed compounding the offence against the petitioners/A2 to A4.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in terms of the compromise and the petitioners/A2 to A4 are acquitted, under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bail bonds of the petitioners/A2 to A4 shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the petitioners/A2 to A4.
7. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. __________________ M.S.K. JAISWAL, J.
Date: 06.01.2016 Nsr