Jaladi Subba Rao, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., & Another

SHAIK BABA VALI, S/O. LATE SHAIK MASTAN VALI, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.23 8 3, SHARAFF BAZAR, PONNURU 522124, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DIED RESPONDENT NO.2 LRS IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 20.08.2025 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2025 IN CRL.R.C.NO.1213 OF 2008.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC 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., before this Hon'ble High Court against the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.418 of 2007, dt.12-08-2008 on the file of IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur.

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLRCMP 1643 OF 2008)

¶18

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 suspend the execution of sentence passed in Crl.A.No.418 of 2007, dt.12-08-

¶19

-2-

¶20

CRL.R.C. No.1213 OF 2008

¶21

2008 on the file of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur and release the petitioner on bail pending Crl.R.C.,

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 to condone the delay of 1463 days in filing the Criminal Revision Case bearing CrI.R.C.No.1213 of 2008 and pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶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 permit the petitioner to come on record being the son of deceased 2nd Respondent as his Legal Representative to prosecute the present Revision Case bearing CrI.R.C.No. 1213 of 2008 and pass

¶26

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶27

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 may be pleased to permit to compromise, compound the offence, and consequently quash the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No. 430 of 2003 and modified the order inCrI. Appeal No. 418 of 2007, in terms of the settlement between the parties, and pass

¶28

IA NO: 4 OF 2025

¶29

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 may be pleased to record the compromise, compound the offence, and consequently quash the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No. 430 of 2003 on the file of on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnurand modified by the order inCrI. Appeal No. 418 of 2007 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in terms of the settlement between the parties, and pass

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

1.VENKATESH KOSARAJU

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.N SIVA REDDY

¶34

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

-3-

¶37

CRL.R.C. No.1213 OF 2008

¶38

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶39

I.A. Nos.3 & 4 OF 2025

¶40

IN/AND

¶41

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1213 OF 2008

¶42

COMMON ORDER:

¶43

The present criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed challenging the judgment dated 12.08.2008 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No.418 of 2007.

¶44

By the impugned judgment, learned IV Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of the petitioner/accused and modified the sentence imposed by learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, by judgment dated 18.12.2007 in C.C. No.430 of 2003. Learned Magistrate had found the petitioner/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘ N.I. Act ’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶45

During pendency of the revision, the 2^nd respondent/ de facto complainant passed away. Consequently, the 3^rd respondent, being the legal heir of the deceased 2^nd respondent/ de facto complainant, was impleaded in the criminal revision case vide order dated 10.07.2026 passed in I.A. No.2 of 2025. Thereafter, the parties arrived at an

¶46

-4-

¶47

CRL.R.C. No.1213 OF 2008

¶48

amicable settlement. The petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 seeking permission to compound the offence and to quash the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.430 of 2003, as modified in Crl.A.No.418 of 2007. The parties also filed I.A.No.4 of 2025 seeking to record the compromise, along with a Joint Memo executed by the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. Photostat copies of their Aadhaar Cards have also been filed in proof of their identity.

¶49

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner and the 3^rd respondent are personally present before this Court.

¶50

On being queried by this Court, the 3^rd respondent submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and that the entire cheque amount has been received in terms of the compromise. The petitioner and the 3^rd respondent have jointly filed the compromise petition along with the Joint Memo. The signatures of the parties have been duly identified and attested by their respective learned counsel.

¶51

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the compromise has been entered into voluntarily and that the 3^rd respondent has willingly signed the compromise petition without any coercion or undue influence. Therefore, there is no impediment to record the compromise between the parties.

¶52

The petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, which is compoundable in nature. In view of the

¶53

-5-

¶54

CRL.R.C. No.1213 OF 2008

¶55

settlement arrived at between the parties and having regard to the fact that the 3^rd respondent/ legal heir of the deceased de facto complainant has received the entire cheque amount, there is no legal impediment to permit the parties to compound the offence.

¶56

Accordingly, I.A. Nos.3 and 4 of 2025 are allowed and the compromise between the parties is hereby recorded. Consequently, the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compounded.

¶57

Under the above observation, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner in C.C.No.430 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, as modified in Crl.A.No.418 of 2007 by learned appellate Court, is hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged.

¶58

Accordingly, the criminal revision case is disposed of.

¶59

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed.

¶60

______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J

¶61

Dt.10.07.2026

¶62

BV

Jaladi Subba Rao, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaladi Subba Rao, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goondala Rambabu Vs the State of A.P

S. Gangadharam Vs the State of A.P.

Mungara Kondala Rao Vs State of A.P

Tummalacheruvu Madhava Rao Vs Rachakulla Ananda Krishna Kumari @ Krishna Kumari & 3 Others

Devarakonda Ramulu, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Tadi Satti Reddy, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., & 8 Others