The High Court · 2025

2. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecl I )r, High court of AP Hyderabad. .. RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT /RESPONDE NT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 359 (6) of the BNSS, p aying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pet :ion, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/defacto complaina r : to compound the offence punrshable under section 498A, R/W Section 3 and 4 rf Dowry Prohibition Act in Crl RC N0.260 of 2014 pending before this Hon'ble court lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Smt T.Latha, W/o T.Kishore Kumar, aged about 45 years, O( :: House Wife, R/O H.No. 2-3-5121171, Bapunagar, Am6erpet, Hyder,bad. ...PETITIONER/DE.FA(] I'O COMPLAINANT AND 1 . T. Kishore Kumar. S/o T Maltaiah, occ: UnEmployee ./o Reddy Nagar, Dammaiguda Village, Keesara Mandal, R.F .district. H. No.5-16 Raji RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER/APP :LLANT/ACCUSED 2. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public prosecut ,r, High court of Ap Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT /RESPOND-: {T/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 359 (2) of the BNSS, F,i iying that in the ion, the High Court between the 2'd CCUSEd in CRL,RC :q uit the revision file of this Honble circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pet may be pleased to compound/compromise the offencel; respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioner/appellantr. 260 tf 2014 pending before this Hon'ble court and z petitioner/appellanUaccused in CRL.RC. 260 of 2014 on thr: court. Counsel for the Petitioner in Crl.RC and Respondent No.1 in l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 : Sri. Nizarrrl ur Chandra Sekhar Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in Crl.RC and Respondent No.2 in l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 : Additional )ublic prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in Crl.RC and Petitioner in LA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 : Sri. V. Nageswa .a Rao. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 in/a nd CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.260 ot 2O14 COMMON ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner- appellant-accused No.1 under Sections 397 and 4O1 of Cr.P-C. seeking to set aside the judgment dated 10.10.2012 passed in C.C No.92'1 of 2007 by the learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, which was confirmed in the.ludgment dated 1 1.02.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1055 of 2012 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.

2. By the impugned judgments, the petitioner-appellant-accused No.'1 was convicted for the offences under Sections 498-4 of lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC') and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for sho( the 'Act'). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years for the offence under Section 498-4 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.4,0001, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) months. He was further convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to i 2 pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo sinrp e imprisonment for a period of one (1 ) year. He was also convictec for the offence under Section 6 of the Act and sentenced to underll rsix (6) months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in d,: ault to undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) months. All the entences were directed to run concurrently 3 lt is submitted by learned counsel appearing i r the petitioner- appellant-accused No.1 as well as responden . No.2-de facto complainant that during the pendency of the 1t esent Criminal Revision Case, the parties have compromised .re matter and accordingly, l.A.Nos 2 and 3 of 2025 have been iled seeking to compound the offences and to compromise the matir r, respectively

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor l- i s opposed the said compromise petitions

5. Perused the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant in l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 which disclose that sl e has willingly consented for compromise. Since the parties werr: willing to enter into compromise, they were given a chance to sett 3 the matter by appearing along with their respective counsel before the High Court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telarr ana vide order ., EfD J ctlt. )60 )011 dated 30 10.2025 passed by this Court. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall identify the parties and submit a report to that sffect.

6. Pursuant to the above said direction issued by this Court, the parties along with their respective counsel have appeared before the High Court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana and the Secretary of the above said Authority identified the parties and submitted a report dated 10.11.2025 to that effect stating that the parties were identified and they have willfully and without any coercion entered into compromise as per the terms of compromise.

7. In view of the above, l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed Consequently, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner-appellant-accused No.1 in the judgment dated 10.10.2012 passed in C.C.No.921 ol 2OO7 by the learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, which was confirmed in the judgment dated 11.02.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1055 of 2012 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (lVahila Court), Hyderabad, is hereby set aside, subject to the petitioner-appellant-accused No.1 paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- 4 EtI) J ttltL .'6t) )014 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Secretary, 11 3h Court Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and Rs.5,0001 (Rupees Five Thousar d Only) to the Telangana Bar Association, Hyderabad, within a per :d oi'three (03) weeks from today and file proof of the same before l e Registry. The bail bonds of the petitioner-appellant-accused Nl 1 shall stand cancelled.

8. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sh: ll stand closed ;D/. MOHD. ISMAIL [) :PUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// \ ,SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hydere )ad 2. The V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, (Mahila - )urt) City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad.

3. The Station House Officer, Amberpet Police Station, HyJ rrabad 4. The Superintendent, Central Prrson, Chanchalguda, Hyrl rrabad. 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the stal ) of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri. Nizampur Chandra Sekhar, Advocate [O 'UC] I l ,a/\ I l

7. One CC to Sri. V Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies PTPSL I Total Amount of Rs. 10.0001 ( Rupees Ten thousand only ) has been paid by Sri N.Chandra Sekhar, Counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.11.2025 as Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the "Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana and Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the Telangana Bar Association, Hyderabad and filed lvlemo as proof of compliance USR No. 143606 of

2025. w HIGH COURT DATED: 2011112025 \ \ COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos. 2 AND 3 OF 2025 IN/AND CRLRG.No.26O of 2014 HES i4 O.J * i .i'l Z[]Zh 3 e * l ALLOWING THE CRL.RC AND I.A'S N ^SL X'-t