High Court Andhra Pradesh disposed of combined criminal revision cases and transferred criminal appeals regarding cheque dishonour charges, dismissing proceedings as parties had entered a compromise and accused paid the due amount.
Both the Criminal Revision Cases and Transfer Criminal Appeals were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1450 & 1451 of 2001 and Tr.Crl.A.Nos.999 and 1000 of 2010
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1450 of 2001
Between: M.Jayalakshmi ..... PETITIONER(S) AND P.Goverdhan Reddy and another .....RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1451 of 2001 Between: M.Jayalakshmi ..... PETITIONER(S) AND P.Goverdhan Reddy and another .....RESPONDENT(S)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1450 & 1451 of 2001 and
Tr.Crl.A.Nos.999 and 1000 of 2010
COMMON ORDER:
For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
The two complaints filed by the complainant (petitioner in the two revision cases i.e. Crl.R.C.Nos.1450 and 1451 of 2001) against the accused (1st respondent in the two revision cases) on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, were taken on file by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C.Nos.409 and 122 of 1999, respectively. The trial Court having assessed the evidence that has come up during the course of trial found the accused guilty of the said offence in those two cases but, however, taking a lenient view let him off by imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- only, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, in each case. On the ground that the sentence imposed on the accused is inadequate, the complainant filed the two revision cases and, aggrieved by the sentence of payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-, the accused filed Criminal Appeal Nos.191 and 192 of 2001 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
As the subject matter in the two revision cases and the Criminal Appeals filed before the appellate Court is same, this Court allowed the transfer applications filed by the complainant and, accordingly, those two criminal appeals were ordered to be withdrawn from the file of the District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, and transferred to this Court to be heard along with
these two revision cases which are numbered as Tr.Crl.A.Nos.999 and 1000 of 2010. Thus, all these four matters i.e. Crl.R.C.Nos.1450 and 1451 of 2001 and Tr.Crl.A.Nos.999 and 1000 of 2010 are listed before this Court. In the light of the commonness of these matters, they are all being disposed of together by this common order.
Today when these matters came up for hearing, the learned counsel for both sides submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise and that the accused has paid the entire amount due under the two dishonoured cheques to the complainant and as such the complainant is no more interested in further prosecuting the matters.
In the light of the said submission and the compromise entered into between the parties, both the Criminal Revision Cases as well as the Transfer Criminal Appeals are dismissed.
________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J
30th July 2010 CVRK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to dispose of the criminal revision petitions and transferred criminal appeals in light of the compromise entered into between parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Jayalakshmi
P. Goverdhan Reddy
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
