Allowed

Vishnu Priya Silks v. v.S.R.Handlooms and the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Feb 2020CRLRC/99/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interlocutory application seeking compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after the parties settled the dispute, paid compensation, and appeared before the court.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory application allowed; Criminal Revision disposed off acquitting the accused based on the compromise.

Vishnu Priya Silks Vs v.S.R.Handlooms and the State… — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

I.A. No. 01 of 2020 IN Criminal Revision Case Nos. 99 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present Interlocutory Application came to be filed seeking compounding of the offence on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes.

¶5

Originally, the accused was tried in Calendar Case No. 138 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate at Chirala for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was found guilty and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to the complainant in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the same, Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2005 was filed before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ongole, wherein, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Challenging the same, the present revision came to be filed.

¶6

Pending revision, both the parties have settled the disputes at the instance of elders and well wishers. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner paid Rs.2,83,875/- by way of two demand drafts, as such, the present Interlocutory Application came to be filed for

¶7

¶8

recording the compromise, since the offence is made compoundable.

¶9

Today, the accused as well as the complainant are present before the court. Sri. K. Arjun Choudhary, Advocate, representing Sri. Seetharam Chaparla, Advocate, identified the accused. Sri.Akurathi Ramakrishna, Counsel appearing for the complainant identifies the complainant, who is present in the court representing the Proprietary concern. When examined, both of them stated that they have settled the disputes at the instance of elders and well wishers of both the parties. Accordingly, two demand drafts drawn on HDFC Bank, West Maredpally, Secunderabad for Rs.1,33,875/and Rs.1,50,000/- were handed over to the complainant in the court. On verification of the same, the complainant accepted the same.

¶10

In view of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which permits compounding of the offence, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the application filed seeking compounding can be allowed.

¶11

Insofar as additional amount is concerned, it is pleaded that the accused has already paid Rs.1,50,000/- more, for which the complainant expressed her satisfaction.

¶12

Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is allowed . Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed off acquitting the accused in terms of the compromise arrived at.

¶13

¶14

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶15

stand closed.

¶16

JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

Date: 07.02.2020

SM.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶21

Criminal Revision Case Nos. 99 of 2007

¶22

Date: 07.02.2020

¶23

SM.

Vishnu Priya Silks v. v.S.R.Handlooms and the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Priya Silks v. v.S.R.Handlooms and the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Pulikanti Subba Reddy and 4 Others

Pydipati Gangamma Vs the State of a .P. and 3 Others

Penumatcha Sai Babu Raju, Vs Manda Raja Rao and Another

Sheik Pentu Saheb, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nalla Padmanabham Vs the State of A.P.

Katta Bharatha Rao Vs the State of Ap