Allowed

M.Geethamba v. the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Nov 2022CRLRC/406/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the conviction and sentence in a cheque dishonour case and allowed the criminal revision petition following a settlement where the complainant received a demand draft as full and final settlement.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and sentence in S.T.C.No.29 of 2009 and confirmation in Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2011 were quashed.

M.Geethamba Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and… — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

Crl.R.C.No.406 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner herein was accused in S.T.C. No.29 of 2009 in the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, Chittoor District, for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981. The case ended in conviction against which Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2011 was filed before the Special Sessions Judge cum IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, which also ended in a confirmation of the judgment and sentence of the trial Court. The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision case against the said confirmation of judgment of the trial Court.

¶5

Both the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent complainant are personally present before this Court and are identified by their counsel Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncham and Sri O. Uday Kumar respectively.

¶6

It is submitted that both sides have arrived at a settlement in the matter and the de facto complainant is not interested in pursuing the complaint against the petitioner any more. The de facto complainant also admits that in terms of the settlement, he has received a Demand Draft for Rs.50,000/- as full and final settlement of claims against the petitioner herein.

¶7

RRR,J 2 Crl.R.C.No.406 of 2014

¶8

In view of the above submissions made by the de facto complainant, exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.08.2011 in S.T.C.No.29 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati and the judgment of sentence dated 28.02.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2011 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge cum IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed.

¶9

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶11

17^th November, 2022 Js.

¶12

RRR,J 3 Crl.R.C.No.406 of 2014

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶14

Crl.R.CNo.406 of 2014

¶15

17^th November, 2022

¶16

Js.

M.Geethamba v. the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Geethamba v. the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

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

Bandi Srinivasa Rao Vs Anil Kumar Singal

Tadala D.N.V.B.G. Rama Rao, Vs Anil Kumar Singal

M Srihari Rao at Srihari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tunga Rama Devi, Vs The Station House Officer

A Punna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tatineni Venkateswara Rao Vs Kollipara Kishore Kumar