Allowed

Munnangi Venkateswara Rao, v. Alla Sridhara Reddy and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Nov 2023CRLRC/1027/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC regarding Section 138 NI Act, the High Court allowed the revision on the basis of a post-conviction settlement. The court opined that continuing proceedings would abuse the process of law and acquitted the accused upon recording the joint compromise memo.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is allowed; conviction and sentence are set aside; the accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Munnangi Venkateswara Rao, Vs Alla Sridhara Reddy… — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

¶5

I.A.NOS: 1 AND 2 OF 202? IN/AND

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1027 OF 2Qn»

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment and sentence in CC.No.283 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, dated 22.09.2006 as confirmed in Crl.A.No.395 of 2006 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur at Tenali, dated 11.07.2008.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Munnangi Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Venktarathaiah, aged 42 years Hindu Coolie, Resident of Munnangi Village, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur District.

¶10

...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused AND

¶11

Alla Sridhara Reddy, S/o. Ramakoti Reddy, Aged 55 years. Coolie Residing near Library, Munnangi Village, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur District. ^

¶12

State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi.

¶13

...Respondents/ Respondents/Complainant

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Between:

¶16

AllaLibrary,SridharaMunnangiReddy,Village,S/o. RamakotiKollipara Mandal,Reddy, AgedGunturabout Shct65 years R/o Near

¶17

...Petitloner/1®* Respondent/ Defacto Complainant AND

¶18

Munnangi Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Venktarathaiah, o of Munnangi Village, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur District.^{aged56years.Resident}

¶19

...Respondent/Petitioner /Accused

¶20

1. State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi.

¶21

...Respondent/ Respondent

¶22

stated^n P^^'''"9 i" ‘^e circumstances D e?sed to record ® '" 9®'"'°"' "'® ^^'9*' Court may^be 5l?027/7nna ‘^® Criminal Revision Case fho Respondent/Petitioner/Accused by settina aside he judgment dated 22-09-2006 in C.C. No.283 of 2005 on the filfof || ^ddf Munsif Magistrate, Tenali and which was confirmed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 11-07-2008 in Crl.A.No.395/2006 on the file of X AddT DistS an0 Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali. district

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 20??

¶24

Between:

¶25

AllaLibrary,SridharaMunnangiReddy,Village,S/o. RamakotiKollipara Mandal,Reddy, AgedGunturaboutDistrict.^65 years,\ R/o. Near

¶26

...Petitioner/1 Respondent/ Oefacto Complainant

¶27

AND years. ' iSsfi„r.t5svM-.a.'a;'Swa“ “

¶28

...Respondent/Petitioner/Accused 2. State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amarayathi.

¶29

...Respondent/ Respondent

¶30

Petitioner/Accused to compromise the CrI.R.C. No. 1027 of 2008. ^ ^

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused: Sri. CH Ravindra Babu Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor

¶33

The Court made the following Order:

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶35

I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2022

¶36

in/and

¶37

Criminal Revision Case No. 1027 of 2008

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

This Criminal Revision Case, is filed by the petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.07.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2006 on the file of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast^Track Court), Tenali, whereby the conviction and sentence recorded against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence^punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,^1881inthe judgment dated 22.09.2006 passed in C.C.No.283 of 2005^onthe file of the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, were confirmed. 2. It is represented that both the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of the Court. In view of the settlement arrived at between both the parties, they filed I.A.Nos.^1and 2 of 2022 along with joint memo signed by both the parties^seekingto permit them to record the compromise.

¶40

Both the parties are present before this Court and^theyare identified by the respective counsel,

¶41

When this Court questioned the complainant with regard^to compromise, he submits that he received the cheque amount and reported no objection to allow the present revision case,

¶42

Hence, this Court opines that continuation of further proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶43

Recording the said Joint memo I.A.Nos.l and 2 of 2022 are allowed.

¶44

Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded in the judgment^dated 22.09.2006 in C.C.No.283 of 2005 passed by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, as confirmed in judgment dated 11.07.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2006 by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tenali and therebythe petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶45

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶46

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶47

To.

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

SD/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY, REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶50

Guntor Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Tenali, 3 nnt rr *35 Magistrate, Tenali. Guntur district §§ill

¶51

Stu sree

¶52

along with the joint compromise memo to the addressees 1 to 5

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/11/2023

ORDER

I.A No.1 & 2 of 2022 in/and CRLRC.No.1027 of 2008

¶57

ALLOWING THE I.A No.1 & 2 of 2022 in/and CrI.R.C

¶58

¶59

HIGH COURT JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESFI AT AMARAVATHI

¶60

Between :

¶61

Munnangi Venkateswara Rao, S/o Venkatarathaiah, Aged about 56 years, R/o Munnangi Village, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur, District. ... Petitioner/Accused

¶62

And

¶63

Alla Sridhara Reddy, S/o Ramakoti Reddy, Aged about 65 years, R/o Near Libruary, Munnangi Village, Kollopara Mandal, Guntur District. ... Respondent /Defacto Complainant

¶64

The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi. ... Respondent/Respondent

¶65

JOINT MEMO

¶66

It is submitted that the present joint memo is being^filed herewith by both^theparties to compound the offence between the defacto complainant/U‘^{Respondentand} the Petitioner/Accused as the matter is settled out of court amicably. As submitted the affidavit filed by the 1 St respondent herein, this Hon’ble court may be pleased^toacquit the Petitioner/Accused by setting aside the judgment^{dated22-09-2006inC.C.No.283of} 2005 on the file of II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Tenali and which was confirmed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 11-07-2008 in Crl.A.^{No.395/2006onthefileofXI} AdSk'^Dlftrlct and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at^Tenali.

¶67

For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to record compromise and allow the Criminal Revision Case No. 1027/2008^andacquitthe Petitioner/Accused by setting aside the judgment dated^22-09-2006 in C.C. No.283 of 2005 on the file of II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Tenali and which was confirmed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 11-07-2008 in Crl.A.^{No.395/2006onthefileolXI} Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Tenali and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the^{circumstancesofthecase.}

¶68

Counsel for U‘ Respondent U' Respondent/Defacto Complainant

Munnangi Venkateswara Rao, v. Alla Sridhara Reddy and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munnangi Venkateswara Rao, v. Alla Sridhara Reddy and Another

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

Medpati Suryanarayana Reddy at Suryayya at Sura Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.K.Prahallada Rao, Vs the State of Andhr Pradesh Rep by Pp.

Lingamaneni Durga Rajya Lakshmi Vs Sri Dattapriya Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd.

E.Govindrajulu Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Maddi Gopala Rao, Vizianagaram. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Serasani Vijaya Babu Vs the State, Rep.Byits P.P