Allowed

C. Prasanth Kumar, v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC9 Oct 2009CRLRC/1278/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the basis of a recorded compromise where the complainant received payment, the court permitted compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, acquitted the accused, set aside lower court judgments, and dismissed the criminal revision case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner/accused acquitted under Section 138 of NI Act; compoundable offence compounded; both judgments of courts below set aside.

C. Prasanth Kumar, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRAKUMAR

¶2

CRL.M.P.NO.2377 OF 2009 &

¶3

CRL. M.P.NO.2378 OF 2009 & CRL.R.C.NO.1278 OF 2005

¶4

Date:09.10.2009

¶5

Between:

¶6

C. Prasanth Kumar

¶7

.... Petitioner/Accused.

¶8

And:

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and another

¶10

....Respondents.

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRAKUMAR

¶12

CRL.M.P.NO.2377 OF 2009

¶13

& CRL. M.P.NO.2378 OF 2009 &

¶14

CRL.R.C.NO.1278 OF 2005

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

The petitioner and 2^nd respondent/defacto-complainant are present. The petitioner/accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, by judgment dated 8.11.2004 in C.C.No.925 of 2002 passed by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶17

Though the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal against the above referred judgement in Crl.A.320 of 2004, but the same was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by his judgement dated 29.07.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

¶18

Now, the petitioners have filed Miscellaneous Application No.2377 of 2009 under Section 320 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to compound the offence and Miscellaneous application No.2378 of 2009 to record the compromise and acquit the petitioner/accused.

¶19

The 2^nd respondent/complainant E. Rajesh Kumar is present and submitted that in terms of the compromise, he has received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) by way of Demand Draft bearing No.005486 dated 08.10.2009 drawn on Yes Bank, Somajiguda Branch, Hyderabad and also received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) by way of cash. Since the parties have compromised the matter, the 2^nd respondent-complainant is permitted to compound the offence and the compromise is recorded and in terms of the compromise, and the petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and consequently, both the judgments of the courts below stands set aside. Petitioner/accused is acquitted accordingly under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

Accordingly these two Miscellaneous Petitions are ordered.

¶21

In view of the orders passed in these miscellaneous petitions, no order need be passed in the Criminal Revision Case. Accordingly this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

¶22

B.CHANDRAKUMAR

¶23

Date:09.10.2009. Gk.

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRAKUMAR

¶25

CRL.M.P.NO.2377 OF 2009 & CRL. M.P.NO.2378 OF 2009 & CRL.R.C.NO.1278 OF 2005

¶26

DATE:09.10.2009

¶27

Gk.

C. Prasanth Kumar, v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Prasanth Kumar, v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

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

Shaik Abdul Rahiman , Uma Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

K.Prabhakar Vs K.Samatha

Mopidevi Venkata ramana Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Puranlal Yadav Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Noman Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Noman Khan, (A4) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh