Partly allowed

Vanapalli Yesu Prabhu v. Alluri Surya Chandrudu & the State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Sept 2025CRLRC/1412/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court considered a cheque-dishonour case where the petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence. Upon hearing a petition for compounding filed by the petitioner, the court found the offence compounded and the parties settled. The matter was disposed of by allowing the compromise, setting aside the appellate order, and acquitting the accused.

What did the court decide?

The petition for compounding was allowed; the criminal revision case was disposed of by setting aside the appellate judgment and acquitting the accused under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds were

Vanapalli Yesu Prabhu Vs Alluri Surya Chandrudu… — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

[3369]

APHC010304352011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:1412/2011

¶8

Between:

¶9

VANAPALLI YESU PRABHU, S/O VEERABHADRA RAO, R/O H.NO.48-7-49, FLAT NO.102, SUNDAR RESIDENCY, RAMA TALKIES, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

ALLURI SURYA CHANDRUDU, S/O DORAYYA, R/O D.NO.18-237, ADARSHNAGAR, H.B.COLONY, VISAKHAPATANAM.

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court aggrieved against the Judgment of the learned I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, passed in Crl.A.No.56 of 2010, dated 28.06.2011 dismissing the appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2010 of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.245 of 2009.

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 2021 OF 2011

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶18

¶19

dispense with the filing of certified copy of the Judgment of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.245 of 2009, dated 23.02.2010.

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 2032 OF 2011

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence, conviction and Judgment dated 28.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.56 of 2010, on the file of the learned I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2010 of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.245 of 2009, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 12261 OF 2015

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Crl.R.C.No.1412/2011 by compounding the offence and consequently set aside the sentence imposed in CC 245/2009 by the chief metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam dated 23.02.2010 which was confirmed in Crl.A.56/2010 by the I Addl. Metropolitan sessions judge, Visakhapatnam dated 28.06.2011 in the interest of justice

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.I GOPAL REDDY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.M CHALAPATI RAO

¶30

2.JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA

¶31

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

¶32

1. I.A.No.1 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking to permit the petitioner/accused and the respondent No.1 to compromise and to allow the present Criminal Revision Case by compounding the offence against

¶33

¶34

the petitioner in C.C.No.245 of 2009 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

¶35

2. The complainant (1^st respondent) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the accused, exploiting their acquaintance, borrowed Rs.30,000/- on 15.12.2006 citing an emergency, and assured repayment with 36% interest per annum within two months. Accordingly, the complainant issued self-cheque No.225244 dated 15.12.2005 for Rs.65,000/-, drawn on Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Visakhapatnam, which the accused encashed without executing any promissory note or written acknowledgment. Despite repeated demands, the accused issued cheque No.804993 dated 10.03.2007 for Rs.30,000/-, drawn on SBI, Madhurawada Branch, Visakhapatnam, requesting it be presented after June 2007. The cheque was presented on 06.07.2007 and returned unpaid on 07.07.2007 with the endorsement "Insufficient Funds." A legal notice demanding payment was issued on 23.07.2007, but was returned as "Not Claimed".

¶36

3. After considering the material as well as evidence on record, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam [for short, “the Trial Court”] vide Judgment dated 23.02.2010 in C.C.No.245 of 2009, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, and the accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.35,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two (02) months. Of the fine amount, Rs.30,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., after the expiry of the appeal period.

¶37

4. Aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 23.02.2010 in C.C.No.245 of 2009 passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant/Accused preferred an Appeal in Crl.A.No.56 of 2010 on the file of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, “the 1^st Appellate Court”) challenging the correctness of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. By judgment dated

¶38

¶39

28.06.2011, the 1^st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant/Accused by the Trial Court. Pursuant to the impugned judgment, the Petitioner/Accused preferred the present Revision Case.

¶40

5. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶41

6. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioner/accused and the 1^st respondent/complainant appeared in person and were identified by their respective counsel. The terms of the compromise, as detailed in the affidavit, were read out and acknowledged as true and correct by all parties. As per the Joint Memo, the complainant stated that the matter has been amicably settled out of court, and the full cheque amount has been paid, and he has no objection to allow the present revision.

¶42

7. The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only), as directed, towards compounding fee to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati through Demand Draft No.631346, dated 24.09.2025, and the receipt has been submitted to the Court.

¶43

8. Pursuant to the compromise recorded in I.A.No.01 of 2022, it is stated that both parties have resolved their differences by entered into a Memorandum of compromise. Accordingly, there is no necessity to prosecute the Accused, and the Complainant has no objection to close the case against the Accused.

¶44

9. Upon being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the compromise, and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I.A.No.1 of 2022, is allowed . Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the judgment dated 28.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.56 of 2010 on the file of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, which had confirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, dated 23.02.2010 in C.C.No.245 of

¶45

¶46

Accordingly, the petitioner/accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged.

¶47

Interim orders passed earlier, if any, shall stand vacated and consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

_____________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶49

Date: 24.09.2025 SAK

¶50

¶51

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶52

I.A.No.1 of 2022 In/and Criminal Revision Case No.1412 OF 2011

¶53

DATE: 19.09.2025

¶54

SAK

Vanapalli Yesu Prabhu v. Alluri Surya Chandrudu & the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanapalli Yesu Prabhu v. Alluri Surya Chandrudu & the State of A.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

D.M.Rajeswar Rao, Visakapatnam & 6 Othrs., Vs State, Rep Sho, III Town Ps., Visakapatnam -Pp.

M.Sankar, Chittoor Dt., Vs M.Krishnaiah Chetty (Died) & 2 Otrs., Rep Pp.

Palika Srinivasa Kumar & Another Vs the State of A.P.

Tholana Srinivas, Visakhapatnam., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp and Anr.

G.Srinivasa Reddy Vs State of Ap., & Another

Chandaka Ravi, Vizianagaram Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp.