IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.9986 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Varthevath Sugali Sankar Naik S/o. Varthavath Venkatesh Naik …. Petitioner/Accused AND State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.9986 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 320 (5) Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner Varthevath Sugali Sankar Naik – accused, seeking to set aside the common order dated 26-10-2009 in Criminal M.P. Nos.386 and 387 of 2007 in Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anantapur and consequently to compound the offence under Section 376 IPC in S.C. No.86 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur and acquit him for the same. 2. Heard. 3. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376 IPC and he was convicted for the same in S.C. No.86 of 2005. Against the order of conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2007, wherein he filed the impugned applications seeking permission to compound the offence and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against him in S.C. No.86 of 2005 and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. 4. Now, the petitioner and the de facto complainant M. Kavitha – PW.1 are present. The de facto complainant reports that the accused married her in December, 2007 and since then they are living together. In support of her statement, petitioner filed two photographs of their marriage found at page No.31 of the material papers, which helps in identifying the de facto complainant and also to show that the parties have married by exchange of garlands. 5. Though the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376 IPC, considering the fact that he has married the de facto complainant, sending him to prison at this stage, would not be in the interest of the de facto complainant, as she would be put to loss, as he is now her husband. 6. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the de facto complainant is now the wife of the petitioner, who has compromised with him, the impugned order is set aside quashing the offence and setting aside the conviction and sentence against the petitioner in S.C.No.86 of 2005. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.18 of 2004 of Anantapur II Town Police Station, Anantapur, which resulted in S.C. No.86 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur and Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2007 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur, shall stand quashed and the petitioner – accused shall stand acquitted. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 21, 2009 KTL