Allowed

B. Chandraiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC5 Oct 2012CRLRC/1844/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheque dishonour case, the Supreme Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the petitioner's Criminal Revision and the complainant's compromise petition upon verifying an out-of-court settlement. Exercising inherent powers, the Court invoked pragmatic justice to end the litigation, acquitting the accused.

What did the court decide?

Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2798 of 2012 allowed; Criminal Revision allowed; Petitioner acquitted of the offence.

B. Chandraiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1844 OF 2012 AND Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2798 of 2012

¶2

DATED 5^th OCTOBER, 2012.

¶3

BETWEEN :

¶4

B.Chandraiah ..Petitioner-accused

¶5

and

¶6

The State of A.P. & another

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1844 OF 2012 AND

¶9

Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2798 of 2012

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioneraccused challenging the judgment, dated 25.07.2012 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2011 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Initially, the petitioner was prosecuted in C.C.No.119 of 2009 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court at Sangareddy, wherein he was found guilty under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- vide judgment dated 21.07.2011.

¶14

As against the said conviction, accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2011, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions

¶15

Judge. Aggrieved by the same, present revision has been preferred by the petitioner.

¶16

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant and the petitioneraccused have settled the matter outside the Court by arriving at an amicable settlement.

¶17

Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2798 of 2012 is filed by the complainant to which an affidavit and Memorandum of compromise duly signed by the parties are also annexed wherein it is stated that both the parties have compromised the matter and mode of compromise is also narrated.

¶18

Today, the parties appeared before this Court. Complainant produced his driving licence bearing No.DLEAP02300055712011 and petitioner produced pan card bearing No.FBD 3455979 in support of their identity and they are identified by their respective counsel. They also reiterated the contents of the affidavit filed in support of Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2798 of 2012 while reporting compromise.

¶19

A perusal of the material papers on record shows that the disputes are purely personal in nature not involving any public policy. Therefore, the inherent powers of the Court can be invoked to put an end to the vexing litigation by taking a pragmatic view.

¶20

Therefore, Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2798 of 2012 is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence levelled against him.

¶21

Affidavit and Memorandum of Compromise filed in support of Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2798 of 2012 shall be made as part of this order. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶23

Date : 05.10.2012 sur

B. Chandraiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Chandraiah, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

J.Kashi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch.Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Neelam Daniel Vs The State

New Man Mission Association, Vs Syndicate Bank

Nitcherla Annapurna Vs Nitcherla Joga Rao

Mamillapally Kiran Kumar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh