Allowed

A. Lova Raju v. Kinthali Sairam Manikanta

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2021CRLRC/428/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant in a criminal revision filed sought permission to compound an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on a settled compromise. The Court was satisfied with the voluntary nature of the settlement and recorded the compromise, allowing the compounding and setting aside the impugned judgment to acquit the accused.

What did the court decide?

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 allowed; CRP allowed; impugned judgment set aside; petitioner acquitted; bail bonds cancelled.

A. Lova Raju Vs Kinthali Sairam Manikanta — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶2

I.A.No.2 of 2021

¶3

In/And

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.428 of 2020

¶5

ORDER:-

¶6

This Criminal Revision Case under Section 374 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is filed against the Judgment, dated 29.10.2020 in Crl.A.No.32 of 2019, on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parvathipuram, whereby the judgment dated 01.04.2019, passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bobbili in C.C.No.362/2012 was confirmed. By the judgment dated 01.04.2019, the petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine the accused has to suffer S.I for one month for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It was also directed that out of fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, the complainant is at liberty to receive Rs.9,000/- after the expiry of appeal time towards compensation under Section 356(3) Cr.P.C.

¶7

During the pendency of the Crl.R.C, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 are filed by the 1^st respondent seeking permission to compound the offence and record the compromise and acquit the accused in view of the terms of compromise, which are

¶8

¶9

reduced into writing in the joint memo annexed to I.A.No.2 of 2021.

¶10

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner/accused and the 1^st respondent- de facto complainant, who are present in the Court, produced copies of their respective identity proofs. They are also identified by their respective counsel. The parties and their learned counsel submitted that the parties have entered into compromise and settled the matter out of court.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and submissions, this Court is satisfied that the parties have entered into compromise voluntarily with free Will and consent and without any pressure or force from any quarter. Considering the fact that the parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves out of the Court, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending. Therefore, permission is hereby accorded and the compromise is recorded. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 are accordingly allowed.

¶12

In the result, Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the judgment, dated 29.10.2020 in Crl.A.No.32 of 2019, on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parvathipuram, whereby the judgment dated 01.04.2019, passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bobbili in C.C.No.362/2012 was confirmed is hereby set aside and the petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offence with which he is

¶13

¶14

charged and found guilty. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The joint memo shall form part of this order.

¶15

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶16

_____________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Date: 02.12.2021 VSL

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶19

I I.A.No.2 of 2021

¶20

In/And

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.428 of 2020

¶22

Date: 02-12-2021

¶23

VSL

A. Lova Raju v. Kinthali Sairam Manikanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Lova Raju v. Kinthali Sairam Manikanta

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

Vadavalli Anand Kumar Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Guduru Venkata Naga Sekhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Geeta Vani Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Ramesh Gandhi Vs the State of Andhra Prdesh

Rayudu Naresh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Psumarthi Siva Satyanarayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh