Telangana High Court
CRLRC/1712/2007 of Nainala Satyakeerthi, Vs The State of A.P., on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1712 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ' the CrPC') fby the petitioner/accused is directed against the judgment passed in Crl. Appeal
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTICRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1712 of 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the CrPC') fby thepetitioner/accused is directed against the judgment passed in Crl.Appeal No.61/2006 by the learned II Additional District & SessionsJudge, Amalapuram of East Godavari District.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is representedthat the petitioner/accused and the second respondent/complainant,who is impleaded today in the present Criminal Revision Case videorders in Crl.RC.MP.No.4374 of 2014, have settled and compromisedthe matter out of Court and that the terms of settlement are mentionedin the notarized affidavit and that pursuant to the compromise thecomplainant has received Rs.65,000/- towards full and final settlementand that a petition in Crl.RC.M.P. No.4375/2014 is filed requesting tocompound the offence in C.C. No.157/2003 on the file of the learnedAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole and to acquit thepetitioner and that therefore, permission may be accorded tocompound the offence and the Revision Case may be allowed and theaccused may be acquitted.
3. It is represented that in view of the health condition of thecomplainant/second respondent, now impleaded, he is not in aposition to undertake travel and appear before this Court and that hehad executed a special vakalat in favour of Sri K.N.D.V.Ramana Rao,Advocate, Hyderabad to represent him in this proceeding.
4. Having regard to the submission, permission is accorded tothe said advocate to represent the complainant.
asserted the terms of the compromise and stated that they had enteredinto the compromise voluntarily and out of free will.Invoking theenabling provisions of the CrPC, permission is accorded to enter intothe compromise.
6. Accordingly, Crl.R.C.M.P.No.4375/2014 is ordered and theCriminal Revision Case No.1712 of 2007 is allowed in terms of thecompromise and the judgments of the courts below convicting andsentencing the accused are set aside and the revisionpetitioner/accused is acquitted of the offences with which he wascharged. The compromise proceedings shall form part of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision caseshall stand closed.
____________________________
M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J
Date: 30.12.2014MVA