THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025

in/and

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.260 of 2014

COMMON ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-

appellant-accused No.1 under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the judgment dated 10.10.2012 passed in C.C.No.921 of 2007 by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, which was confirmed in the judgment dated 11.02.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1055 of 2012 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court),

Hyderabad.

2. By the impugned judgments, the petitioner-appellant-accused No.1 was convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) months. He was further convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to

pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) year. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 6 of the Act and sentenced to undergo six (6) months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two (2) months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- appellant-accused No.1 as well as respondent No.2-de facto complainant that during the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Case, the parties have compromised the matter and accordingly, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 have been filed seeking to compound the offences and to compromise the matter, respectively.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the said compromise petitions.

5. Perused the affidavit filed by the de facto complainant in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 which disclose that she has willingly consented for compromise. Since the parties were willing to enter into compromise, they were given a chance to settle the matter by appearing along with their respective counsel before the High Court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana vide order dated 30.10.2025 passed by this Court. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall identify the parties and submit a report to that effect.

6. Pursuant to the above said direction issued by this Court, the parties along with their respective counsel have appeared before the High Court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana and the Secretary of the above said Authority identified the parties and submitted a report dated 10.11.2025 to that effect stating that the parties were identified and they have willfully and without any coercion entered into compromise as per the terms of compromise.

7. In view of the above, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed. Consequently, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner-appellant-accused No.1 in the judgment dated 10.10.2012 passed in C.C.No.921 of 2007 by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, which was confirmed in the judgment dated 11.02.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1055 of 2012 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, is hereby set aside, subject to the petitioner-appellant-accused No.1 paying an amount of Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana Bar Association, Hyderabad, within a period of three (03) weeks from today and file proof of the same before the Registry. The bail bonds of the petitioner-appellant-accused N