Allowed

Sri K.Laxmayya v. Smt. S.Madhavi

Telangana HC9 Oct 2012CRLRC/22/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal revision against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after recording a compromise between the petitioner and the respondent, set aside lower court judgments, and incorporated the settlement into the record.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; judgment of VII Metropolitan Magistrate and IX Additional District and Sessions Judge set aside.

Sri K.Laxmayya Vs Smt. S.Madhavi — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRL.R.C.M.P.No.2887 of 2012

¶3

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.22 of 2012

¶5

09-10-2012

¶6

BETWEEN: K.Laxmayya

¶7

…..Petitioner AND Smt.S.Madhavi and another …..Respondents

¶8

THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶10

CRL.R.C.M.P.No.2887 of 2012

¶11

& CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.22 of 2012

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Challenging the judgment dated 30.12.2011 passed by IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Crl.A.No.99 of 2010 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.409 of 2006 by VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hyderabad dated 14.7.2010, the petitioner herein preferred the present revision. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶14

When the matter is taken up for hearing, both the counsel filed Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2887 of 2012 stating that the parties have entered into compromise and therefore, they prayed to grant permission to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner-accused.

¶15

Both the parties as well as their counsel have signed on the petition i.e. Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2887 of 2012. The parties, who are present in the Court, also affirmed the same. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition goes to show that the matter was settled between the parties.

¶16

In view of the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties and in view of the nature of the proceedings and enabling provision contemplated under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to compound the offence under the Act, Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2887 of 2012 is ordered and the compromise is recorded. Consequent thereto, the revision is

¶17

allowed setting aside the judgment in C.C.No.409 of 2006 dated 14.7.2010 passed by VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hyderabad as well as the judgment in Crl.A.No.99 of 2010 passed by IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. It is directed that this compromise shall form part of the record.

¶18

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this revision shall stand closed.

¶19

_________________ RAJA ELANGO,J

¶20

09.10.2012. Tsr

Sri K.Laxmayya v. Smt. S.Madhavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K.Laxmayya v. Smt. S.Madhavi

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

Gorantla Nrusimha Mahalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Talluri Siva Srikanth, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E.Sridhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mareedu Narasimha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Somarouthu Jagga Dora Vs The Public Prosecutor

Smt. N. Ratna Deepthi, Vs Nallamotu Ratna Kishore