IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.2897 OF 2010. Date:07.04.2010 Between:- Bhavirisetti Siva Prasad and others ..Petitioners/A-1 to A-3 And Vadlamudi Tirupathi Rao and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 (A-1 to A-3) seeking quashing of F.I.R. in Crime No.136 of 2009 of Veeravalli Police Station, Krishna District relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 324, 323, 506/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(I)(X) of the S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Private complaint filed by the first respondent before the Magistrate was referred to the police for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. When this matter came up for hearing before this Court, both the counsel submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter and entered into an agreement dated 08.12.2009 and that therefore, the dispute between the parties does not survive. Both the counsel contended that the said compromise may be recorded by this Court in this petition and quash F.I.R. 3. In my opinion, recording of compromise between the parties in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not arise at all. It can be done only by the Magistrate or the Court where the offences are taken cognizance or where any appeal/revision against acquittal or conviction is pending. Recording of compounding of offence either under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. or under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. has the effect of an acquittal of the accused as per section 320(8) Cr.P.C. An acquittal can be recorded only when the offences are taken cognizance by the Magistrate and not in crime stage. In such a situation, the procedure to be followed is laid down by this Court on several occasions. It is for both the parties to approach the investigating officer, who is in charge of investigation in this crime and present the agreement covered by the compromise before the Investigating Officer. Thereupon, it is incumbent on the investigating officer to record second or further statement of the defacto complainant uner Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and thereafter, proceed with finalisation of the crime having regard to the second or further statement of the defacto complainant. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in this petition. 4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed subject to above observations. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 7th April 2010 AMD