The High Court · 2025

1. State Of Telangana, rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad 2. Srihari, S/o. S. Venkateswara ro, Age 47 years, Occ: Software Employee, R/o. H. No. 191216 A-4, Gudivada - 521301 Cause Title is impleaded the Respondent No. 2 as per Court order dated 2.01 .2025 Vide l.A. no. 1 of 2024. ...Respondent lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: Srihari, S/o. S. Venkateswara Rao, Age 47 years, Occ: Software Employee, R/o H. No. 19/216 A-4, Gudivada - 521301. ... Petitioner/Respondent No.2 I AND

1. A.Venkata Satya Durga Subramanya Chandra Mouli @ l\4ouli @ Attili Chandramouli, S/o. A.Suryanaeyana, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 34, Diamond Hills, Anjali Gardens, Puppalaguda, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 500089. ...RespondenURevision Petitioner 2. state of relansana, rept by the Public t.*".::fitd#91.""""tr4,.:lx:i::it Petition under Section 359(2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to compound the offence and set astde the judgment dated 12. 1 1 2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 46212014, on the file of the Hon'ble lVletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 05.05.2014 passed in C.C No. 25712007 on the file of the Hon'ble Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 66 of lnformation Technology Act, 2000 and Section 406 lndian Penal Code. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 359(3) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise and set aside the judgment daled 12.11.2O14 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 46212014, on the file of the Hon'ble lvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 05.05.2014 passed in C.C. No. 25712007 on the file of the Hon'ble Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, in CRLRC No.2439 ol 2014 for the offence under Section 66 of lnformation Technology Act, 2000 and Section 406 lndian Penal Code. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Sumanth Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Mr. E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Mr. Srinivas Kavali, The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I / THE HONOURABLE SRI.JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 inl and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2439 OF 2014 COMMON ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment dated 72.17.2014 in Criminal Appeai No.462 of 2014 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") confirming the Judgment dated 05.05.2014 in C.C.No.257 of 2OO7 passed by the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").

2. Heard Mr. Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel representing on behalf of revision petitioner, Mr.E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Mr.Srinivas Kavali, learned counsel representing on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the parties EW,J crLR.C.No.2439 of 2014 have entered into compromise and settled the matter out of Court and that the terms of compromise r,l'ere reduced into q.riting in the form of memoraldum of compromise and that I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 have been filed seeking permission of this Court to compound the offences under Sections 66 of Information Technologr Act, 200O and Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and record the terms of compromise betrveen the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner lurther contended that, pursuant to the order dated O2.O1 .2025 passed by this Court, both the parties appeared before the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court of Telangana on

06.O1.2025 and willlully and without any coercion entered into compromise and therefore, seeks to allor,r' the revision

5. Learned Assistant Public Proseclltor as u'e1l as learned counsel for respondent No.2 concedes to the same.

6. The appearances of the petitioner and respondent No.2 is dispensed with. / EVV,J Crl.R.C.No-2439 of 20U

7. In vier.v of the settlement arrived at bet\,veen the parties no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending. Having regard to the enabling provision of Section 32O of Criminal Procedure Code permission is accorded and the compromise is recordecl.

8. Accordingly, the I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 and the Criminal Revision Case are allorved and the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner in Judgment dated

12.11.2O14 in Criminal Appeal No.462 of 2014 passed bJ' the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, H,yderabad confirming the Judgment dated 05.05.2014 in C.C.No.257 of 2OO7 passed by the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampall,y Hvderabad is hereby set aside. The memo shall form part ol this order. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if an_y, shall stand closed. To; Sd/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// 0 SECTION OFFICER lTheMetropolitansessionSJudge,Hyderabad.(Withrecord) 2 rheVl Addl Metropol"';-M;:;;i"' Nampallv'tlvderabad 3. one CC to Mr' Krishna Suminth' Advocate !9l:tl ; 6'# 16 i" rtrt Srinivas Kavali' Advocate [oPucl 5. Two CD CoPies DL (Enclosed a coPY of Joint Memo) HIGH COURT DATED:09/0112025 ORDER l.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2024 ln/And CRLRC.No.2439 of 2014 LA. NOS. 2 AND 3 0F 2024 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE ARE ALLOWeo 3E SrtTc' i 18 t{AB zoz5 t I'5 r:6 - c_$ 1 i l I i ! i I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOII. THE S'TATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) Crl.RC. No. 2439 of 2014 BETWEEN: Attili Venkata Satya Durga Subramanya' Chandra Mouli @ Mouli @ Attili Chandramouli, S/o. A. Suryanarayana, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.34, Diamond Hills, Anjali Gardens, Puppalaguda, Raj endranagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana-500089. ..Revision Petitioner/Accused AND

1. The State of Telangana Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad

2. Srihari Sonti, S/o. S. Venkateswara Rao, Age 47 years, Occ: Software Employee, R/o. H.No. 191216 A-4, Gudivada- 521301. ...Respondents JOINT MEMO FILED BYTHtr REVISION PETITIONERAND 2\D RESPONDINT

1. It is submitted that the above criminal revision case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 462/2014, on the fite ol the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, I'Iyderabad, confirming the order dated 05.05.2014 passed in C.C. No. 257/2007 on the frle of the Hon'ble Vl Additional Metropolitan Magistrale, Nampally, Hyderabad, lor the offence under Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 406 Indian Penal Code. Io'

2. That due to intervention of common friends and well-lvishers, the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent entercd into compromise anrl agreed to setrle the dispute on compassionate grounds. That the parties hereto have resolved the differences among themselves and agreed to settle their diflerences on the following terms: a. That the petitioner through intermediaries and respected individuals whom the 2od respondent hold in high regard. dpproached the 2nd respondent seeking forgiveness and compromise. The petitioner expressed remorse for his actions and has requested the 2nd respondent to relieve the petitioner of the ongoing charges, citing his financial and emotional exhaustion due to prolonged litigation. b. That the 2nd respondent after careful consideration and consultation, have decided to accept his apologies on humanitarian/ compassionate grounds. The 2nd respondent's decision stems from a place of empathy, recognizing his cunent circumstances, and a desire to move forward, the 2nd respondent requests the Hon'ble Court to consider the acceptance of the petitioner's apologies and compound tlre offence. c. That the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) by way of demand draft bearing no. 822950 dated 24-12-2024 drawn on Karur $sya Bank, Manikonda Branch towards travel, lodging, boarding and conveyance expenses. -) The 2od respondent here by agrees to withdraw the cases without any coercion or undue influence. M "{r1,"- I I I / I As such we have filed a petition seeking the I{on'ble Court to record the compromise. 'lhe contents mentioned in the said compromise petition are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief, The said compromise is entered with our free will and conserit and without any undue influence from any persons. IIence we are [iling the preient Joint Memo. I:lence the .Ioint Memo. n^) Or',-z Attili Venkata Satya Durga Subramanya, Chandra Mouli @ Mouli @ Aitili Chandramouli ,'%l'----: Srihari Sonti outlseI for petitioner Couns t' o t Dh- )- t*- ld-dnut P(^ ce'"- Cftk^^u-J . .i: .4 - I I I I .t 1