IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3025 of 2010 Between: Tepalli Saidulu and another …Petitione AND The State of A.P. and another …Responden The Court made the following THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3025 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2 / the accused seek quashing of FIR in Crime No.37 of 2009 of Suryapet Town Police Station relating to oﬀences punishable under Sections 406, 477-A, 409, 420 IPC. Subject matter of the dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent / de-facto complainant is stated to be amount of Rs.10,000/- given by the second respondent to the accused towards a scheme being run by the accused in the name of a company. It is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that the matter is compromised between the petitioners and the second respondent and that the same may be recorded in this petition. As the matter stands now, no criminal case is ﬁled by the police against the petitioners before the Magistrate and no cognizance for any oﬀences is taken by the Magistrate against the petitioners. Therefore, the question of recording of compounding of the oﬀences punishable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. will not arise in a Court of law. In case, compounding of any oﬀence is recorded by the Court under Section 320(1) or 320(2) Cr.P.C., then it will have the eﬀect of acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. It postulates that a case should be pending before a Court in order to record compounding of any oﬀences, so that the said Court will record acquittal of the accused in that particular case. When there is no case pending in any criminal Court, the question of recording of compounding of oﬀences or compromise of oﬀences by the parties will not arise at all. It is pointed out that some of the oﬀences for which FIR was issued are not compoundable oﬀences as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. The question whether an oﬀence is compoundable or not under Section 320 Cr.P.C. arises only when the case is pending in a Court after taking cognizance of the same by the Magistrate. In case the second respondent is satisﬁed with regard to repayment of his amount by the petitioners, then he is at liberty to state the same before the police and to withdraw report given by him to the police. In such a situation, the police will take appropriate action having regard to the second statement given by the de-facto complainant to the police under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, this petition does not survive before this Court. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 29, 2010 Bvv