THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1668 OF 2006 & CRL.M.P.NO.1581 OF 2010 DT.11.06.2010 Between: Anna Ramachandraiah and another ……………….Petitioners Vs. The State of A.P., represented by P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …………..Respondent. O R D E R: The revision is preferred by the petitioners against the judgment dated 11.10.2004 in C.C.No.79 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, convicting the accused for the alleged offences under Sections 447 and 506 (2) I.P.C., which was confirmed by the VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Tirupathi, in Criminal Appeal Nos.254 and 264 of 2004, dated 09.10.2006. The facts of the case in brief are that on 28.12.2000 at about 4.30 a.m., the complainant-A.Chandrasekhar and his wife Smt.A.Rajeswari and their children were sleeping in the house, petitioners/Accused went to the house of the complainant and the second petitioner/accused No.2 knocked the door of the house of the complainant with the direction of first petitioner/accused No.1 and when the complainant opened the door, he found that second petitioner/accused No.2 was standing at the door by criminally trespassing into the premises. When the complainant asked the second petitioner/accused No.2 as to why he came to the house, he informed that the first petitioner/accused No.1 came there to discuss with him. The complainant noticed A-1 and A-2 and others were standing beside the bunk nearby the house. Due to fear of the accused, the complainant bolted the door. Then the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and two others criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant, knocked the door and abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences that how dare the complainant to ask the petitioner/accuse No.1 and his younger brother A.Ramakrishna to pay due amount of Rs.40,000/- and threatened the complainant stating that if he is not leaving Tirupti with the family members, they would kill them. On that, the complainant presented a report and the same was registered as FIR and the police investigated into the case. The Sub- Inspector of Police arrested the second petitioner/accused No.2 and sent him for judicial remand. First petitioner/accused No.1 surrendered before the court and released him on bail. Since the identity of other two persons was not established, they were not added as accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners herein and the de-facto complainant are living in the same area, the de facto complainant filed a petition before this court, compounding the alleged offences against the petitioners, which reads as follows: “It is submitted that the petitioner lodged a complaint in C.C.No.79 of 2001 dated 11.10.2004 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati, under Section 447 and 506 (2) of I.P.C. It is submitted that the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein were tried for offence under Section 447 and 506 (2) of I.P.C., before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati and they are convicted and aggrieved by the same they filed Crl.A.254 of 2004 and 264 of 2004 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court) Tirupati, which confirmed the order of the Trial Court. The respondents filed Crl.R.C.No.166 of 2006 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and the same is pending before this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondents/accused are residents of same town and residing in same vicinity. Now, on the intervention of the well-wishers and caste elders of both the parties the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 decided to compromise the matter which is the subject matter of the above Crl.R.C.No.1668 of 2006. It is submitted that in order to have peace and harmony between the families of the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 both the parties compromised the matter and filed the present application seeking permission of the Court to compound the offence and acquit the respondent No.2 and 3 from the charges. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to compound the offence U/Sec.447 and 506(2) of IPC and set aside the conviction and sentence of imprisonment passed in C.C.No.79 of 2001 dated 11.10.2004 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati, as confirmed in Crl.A.254 of 2004 and 264 of 2004 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Tirupati, dated 19.10.2006 and acquit the respondent No.2 and 3 from the charge U/Sec.447 and 506 (2) of IPC and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” In order to prove the identity of the complainant, he filed xerox copy of the voter identity card. The same was not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. In view of the fact that the said offences under Sections 447 and 506 (2) I.P.C., are compoundable in nature, which can be compounded under Section 320 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the petition can be allowed and the same is allowed. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, acquitting the petitioners for the said charges levelled against them. ______________ RAJA ELANGO J., Dt.11.06.2010 tjs