JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri A Sreekanth Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S. Venkata Sainath, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and Sri A. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

2. The appellant No. 1 herein was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 342, 417 and 420 IPC. The appellant No. 2 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 109 r/w Sections 376 and 342 read with 34 IPC. They were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 23.10.2017 in Session Case No. 217 of 2013 by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada.

3. The application I.A. No. 2 of 2021 is filed with the following prayer:

“Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/2nd respondent to compromise the matter with the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No. 217 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.”

4. The joint memo has been filed by both the parties i.e. by the petitioners 1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent, stating in paragraph No. 2 thereof as under:

“2. It is further humbly submitted that, the 2nd respondent and petitioner No. 2 are close friends having studied together while we are prosecuting BEd. The 2nd respondent and petitioner No. 1 fell in love and they decided to marry, but due to obvious reasons it was not materialized. Due to some misunderstandings respondent No. 2 gave a report to the police which resulted in punishing the petitioners. While the matter stood thus, the well-wishers, elders from both sides including community people convened a meeting and reprimanded both to put an end to the unnecessary ill feelings in the minds of both parties in order to lead peaceful life in the locality. The 2nd appellant was a close friend of 2nd respondent, as such she realized to end the agony met by both families, as such coming forward to compound the case on her own will and accord. There is no threat or coercion in filing this petition to compound the offence. The 2nd respondent has no objection to allow the appeal filed by the appellants by recording compromise by setting aside the conviction and sentence.”

5. Sri A Sreekanth Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal can be decided setting aside the conviction and sentence order and the convicts can be acquitted in view of the compromise. His submission is that the offence under Section 376 IPC is purely personal in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in the joint memo/application/I.A. No. 2 of 2021 which cannot be termed as heinous offence considering that the 2nd respondent and the petitioner No. 2 were close friends; had studied together and while pursuing B.Ed. they fell in love and decided to marry but it could not be materialized and due to that reason and misunderstanding, the report was lodged by the 2nd respondent. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Ramgopal and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834 and Parvpal Rajivpal Singh vs. State of Gujarat, 2016 Cri. L.J. 243.

6. Sri A. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.

7. Sri S. Venkata Sainath, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, however, opposes the application and submits that the appellants have been convicted of the offences including under Section 376 IPC which is a heinous offence and cannot be termed as a personal offence. It has its impact on the society and as such the I.A. No. 2 of 2021 cannot be allowed. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. The following point arises for consideration:

“whether on the basis of the joint