THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1570 of 2010 AND CRL.R.C.MP.No.2299 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment dated 20.07.2010 passed in Crl.A.No.140 of 2009, whereby the learned III- Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gadwal, while dismissing the said appeal, confirmed the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, in S.T.C.No.10 of 2007. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.03.2006 at 18.45 hours, the petitioner-accused and his henchmen misbehaved with P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.6 when they demanded payment of compensation to the fields of farmers and also threatened P.W.4-Parvathamma to kill her by running machines over her. On the basis of a report lodged by P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6, the police registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2006 against the petitioner- accused under Section 447, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Eventually, after completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the accused. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. However, the petitioner-accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 447 of I.P.C. In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-accused against the said conviction and sentence, the learned III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Gadwal, dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Since the petitioner-accused was absent at the time when the said judgment was pronounced, appellate Court directed the trial Court to issue necessary warrant against the accused for serving the remaining part of sentence. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-accused preferred this criminal revision. Along with the revision, the petitioner-accused filed CRl.R.C.MP.No.2299 of 2010 seeking to compound the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. since the parties have arrived at a compromise and the same was reduced into writing. The terms and conditions of the compromise filed by both parties are as follows: “1. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent compromised the dispute amicably out of Court. 2. The 2nd respondent agreed to withdraw the complaint lodged against the petitioner. 3. The 2nd respondent hereby withdraws all the allegations made in the complaint unconditionally. 4. The 2nd respondent and the petitioner are having friendly and cordial terms and the 2nd respondent is no longer interested in pursing the case, hence the same may be compounded. Today, the 2nd respondent-complainant, who was examined, as P.W.1, and the petitioner-accused are present before this Court. This Court when questioned the 2nd respondent-complainant, he stated that the matter has been settled amicably and he is no longer interested in pursuing the case and therefore the offence charged against the petitioner- accused may be compounded. After hearing the learned Counsel for both sides as well as both the parties, this Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the disputes amicably and the 2nd respondent-complainant agreed to withdraw the complaint lodged against the petitioner-accused. In the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties and as the offence alleged against the petitioner-accused is compoundable , the compromise memo filed by both the parties is recorded and Crl.Rc.MP.No.2299 of 2010 is allowed and the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. is compounded. The Criminal Revision Cases is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner-accused by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C., as confirmed by the appellate Court, are hereby set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the said offence. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner- accused shall be refunded to him. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 07-09-2010 Gsn.