Maraka Rama Krishna & Another Vs the State of A.P. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Maraka Rama Krishna & Another Vs the State of A.P. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Revision Petition disposed of in terms of compromise; conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.A.No.308 of 2011 set aside; revision petitioner No.1 acquitted for the offence under Section 324 IPC; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 seeking recording of compromise and compounding of the offence under Section 324 IPC should be allowed, resulting in setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.A.No.308 of 2011 and acquittal of revision petitioner No.1.

Court's answer

The compromise between the parties, arrived at with the intervention of their children, elders and well wishers, is recorded by the Court and made part of the case.

Ratio / Principle

I.A.No.1 of 2024 is allowed, impleading the complainant/PW.1 (wife of the 1st petitioner) as 2nd respondent in the revision.

Key takeaways

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 are allowed compounding and compromising the offence; consequently the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.A.No.308 of 2011 are set aside.ratio¶34
As a result of the compounding, the revision petitioner No.1 alone is acquitted for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C., and the terms of the compromise are made part of the revision.ratio¶34
The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise, petitioner No.1 is acquitted, and there shall be no order as to costs; pending applications, if any, stand closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati) - Compounding of offence under Section 324 IPC - Husband and wife (revision petitioner and complainant/PW.1) compromised with intervention of children, elders and well wishers - Complainant impleaded as second respondent vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 - Compromise recorded and made part of the case - Conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.A.No.308 of 2011 set aside - Revision petitioner No.1 acquitted for offence under Section 324 IPC - Criminal Revision Petition disposed of in terms of compromise; no order as to costs.

APHC010263182012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3521]

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 880/2012

Between:

Maraka Rama Krishna & Another and Others

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of A P

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.K SRINIVAS

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

2

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.880 of 2012

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024

In/&

Crl.R.C.No.880 of 2012

ORDER:

I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed to implead the complainant/PW.1 Smt. Madata Sridevei Alias Udata Sridevi wife of the 1^st petitioner herein as respondent No.2 in this revision.

In the affidavit, the petitioner narrated that on a complaint given by her, the revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) respectively for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, they filed an appeal i.e. Crl.Appeal No.308 of 2011. The said Appeal was allowed in part confirming the conviction and sentence against A.1/ 1^st petitioner and acquitting the A.2/2^nd petitioner. Instead of filing revision by the 1^st petitioner, mistakenly, both the petitioners filed revision before this Court. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that their children have became majors now and with the intervention of the children, elders and well wishers, they have compromised the case and are living with children amicably at Dokitarthi Village. Hence, the applications were filed for recording compromise.

3

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.880 of 2012

The parties are present and being identified by their respective learned counsels. The parties have filed photo copies of their Aadhar cards in support of their identity.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Compromise is recorded, which is accordingly made part of this case.

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, I.A.No.1 of 2024 is allowed impleading the petitioner as 2^nd respondent in this revision.

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 and 2024 are allowed compounding and compromising the offence, as a result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.A.No.308 of 2011 is set aside and the revision petitioner No.1 alone is acquitted for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. The terms of the compromise shall be made part of the revision.

Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition disposed of in terms of the

compromise and petitioner No.1 is acquitted. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Dt: 03.02.2025 KMS

4

Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.880 of 2012

116

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 880/2012

03.02.2024

KMS