HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO. 3703 OF 2010 Date: 27.04.2010 Between: Chitturi Ravi Kumar and others …..Petitioners And: The State of AP., rep. by its PP And another. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3703 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 4 for quashing F.I.R in Crime No.114 of 2010 of Pet Basheerabad Police Station, Cyberabad relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2) The only question raised by the petitioners’ counsel in this case is that the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Cyberabad did not record compounding of the offences as some of the offences are non- compoundable. The lower Court also should have taken another objection to the affect that since no criminal case is pending in that Court, the question of compounding of the matter will not arise before the Court as the matter is now pending in the police station at the crime stage. The question of compounding an offence by the Magistrate under Section 320(1) or 320(2) Cr.P.C arises only when the offences were taken cognizance by the Magistrate by way of taking the charge sheet/complaint on file. This view is inevitable because as per Section 320(8) Cr.P.C effect of compounding of the offences has the effect of acquittal. The question of recording acquittal in a criminal case arises only when the offences were taken cognizance by the Magistrate and the charge sheet/complaint is taken on file by the Magistrate. 3) It is not as if the parties are left without any remedy in case the parties compromised the matter even before finalising of investigation and filing of final report by the investigating officer before the Magistrate. In such a situation, it is open for both the parties to approach the investigating officer and place the entire facts before the investigating officer. In such a situation, it is open to the investigating officer to record further or second statement of the victim and others under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C and it is for the investigating officer to act upon the said further or second statement recorded from the victim and others if any. Therefore, having regard to the view taken by this Court, the question of recording of compromise regarding compounding of offences either by the Magistrate or by this Court does not arise at all. 4) Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:27.04.2010. KSH