A.Venkata Surya Durga Subramanya ... vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2025 Latest Caselaw 995 Tel

Telangana High Court

A.Venkata Surya Durga Subramanya ... vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 9 January, 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

                      I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024

                                 in/and

     CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2439 OF 2014

COMMON ORDER:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against

the Judgment dated 12.11.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.462

of 2014 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") confirming the

Judgment dated 05.05.2014 in C.C.No.257 of 2007 passed

by the learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Nampally Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").

2. Heard Mr. Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel

representing on behalf of revision petitioner,

Mr.E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Srinivas

Kavali, learned counsel representing on behalf of

respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned

counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the parties

EVV,J

have entered into compromise and settled the matter out of

Court and that the terms of compromise were reduced into

writing in the form of memorandum of compromise and

that I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 have been filed seeking

permission of this Court to compound the offences under

Sections 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and

Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and record the terms of

compromise between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended

that, pursuant to the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by

this Court, both the parties appeared before the High Court

Legal Services Committee, High Court of Telangana on

06.01.2025 and willfully and without any coercion entered

into compromise and therefore, seeks to allow the revision.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as

learned counsel for respondent No.2 concedes to the same.

6. The appearances of the petitioner and respondent

No.2 is dispensed with.

EVV,J

7. In view of the settlement arrived at between the

parties no purpose would be served in keeping the

proceedings pending. Having regard to the enabling

provision of Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code

permission is accorded and the compromise is recorded.

8. Accordingly, the I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 and the

Criminal Revision Case are allowed and the conviction and

sentence recorded against the petitioner in Judgment dated

12.11.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.462 of 2014 passed by

the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad confirming

the Judgment dated 05.05.2014 in C.C.No.257 of 2007

passed by the learned VI Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Nampally Hyderabad is hereby set aside. The

memo shall form part of this order.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date:09.01.2025.

krl