Allowed

Mohd Nizamuddin Taj v. State of Ap.

Telangana HC12 Mar 2018CRLP/2649/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision case involved a challenge to convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court allowed the revision upon recording a compromise between the parties, holding that once the dues were paid and acknowledged, the conviction should be set aside. The accusedis also freed to withdraw the earlier deposit.

What did the court decide?

The conviction was set aside, the criminal revision was allowed, and the accused was at liberty to withdraw the earlier deposit.

Mohd Nizamuddin Taj Vs State of Ap. — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

132511

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

t.A.NO 10F 2019

¶7

IN/AND

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2649 OF 2018

¶9

Criminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of CrPC against the judgment dated 10-09-2018 made in CRLA NO.1410 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad confirming the.judgment daled 04-12-2017 made in CC No.541 of 2016 on the file of the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan lvlagistrate at Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/s.Swan Infra P@ects and Engineering P!'t.Ltd., Rep.by its Director,J.Ravikiran, S/o.Late Satyanarayan, R|/o.Plot No.82, Meenkshi Estates, Jeedimetla Village, Secunderabad, State of Telangana.

¶12

J.Ravikiran, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged 38 years, Occ.Director of Swan lnfra Projects and Engineering Plrt.Ltd., Fi/o.Plot No.82, Meenakhsi Estates, Jeedimetla Village, Secunderabad, State of Telangana.

¶13

...ACCUSED/PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

P.Srikanth Reddy, S/o.Sudershan Reddy, aged 45 years, Occ.Proprietor of Maanvi Trading Co., Fl/o.Plot No.76 and 77, Shiva Enclave, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad, State of Telangana.

¶16

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad at High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶17

...COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI RAJ KUMAR RUORA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

I.A.NO: 1 OF 2019

Between:

P.Srikanth Reddy, S/o.Sudershan Reddy, aged 45 years, Occ.Proprietor of Maanvi Trading Co., R!/o.Plot No.76 and 77, Shiva Enclave, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad, State of Telangana.

¶25

... PETIT]ONERS

¶26

AND

¶27

'l . The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad at High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶28

M/s.Swan lnfra Projects and Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by its Director,J.Ravikiran, S/o.Late Satyanarayan, R/o.Plot No.82, Meenkshi Estates, Jeedimetla Village, Secunderabad, State of Telangana.

¶29

J.Ravikiran, S/o.Satyanarayana, aged 38 years, Occ.Director of Swan lnfra Projects and Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Fl/o.Plot No.82, Meenakhsi Estates, Jeedimetla Village, Secunderabad, State of Telangana.

¶30

...RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS

¶31

Petition under Section 147 of Nl Act Riw 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise entered by both the petitioner and 3rd respondent, allow the criminal revision by setting aside the judgment made in Crl.A.No. 1410 of 2O17 dated 10-09-2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJ KUMAR RUDRA

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEK.SURENDER}

¶38

I.A.No.1 OF 2019 in/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE^{No.2649 0F 20La}

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

t. This Criminal Revision^Case is^{filed questioningthe} concurrent hndings of^{guilt by Courtsbelow for offenseunder} Section 138 of the Negotiabte^{Instruments Act (for short 'N' [ '} Act').

¶41

During the pendency of^{the Criminal Revision Case, the} parties have entered into a^{compromise and the amounts were} paid to the complainant. Receipts^{were also executed} acknorvledging the said Payment.

¶42

Learned counsel for^{the revision petitionerwould submit} that in pursuance ol^{the orders of the learned Metropolitan} Sessions Court, Hyderabad,^{in Crl.A.No.1410 of 2017, dated} 10.09.2O18, an amount^{of Rs.2,OO,OOO/-was deposited by the} accused. However, thc^{e ntire amountof Rs.30,OO,OOO/ - was} paid and acknowledged^{by the accused'}

¶43

Sri Raj Kumar^{Rudra, Iearned counsel forthe} complainant is present^{and on instructions wouldsubmit that} the amounts were^{received by the complainant.}

¶44

¶45

i I

¶46

4 The Penal provision under the N.I. Act was introduced to enforce payments.

¶47

Since the parties have compromised and payments are

¶48

made, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the conviction under Section l3g of the N.I_ Act.

¶49

Accordingly, I.A.No. 1 of 2019, filed for compromise is

¶50

allowed. consequently, this crirninar Revision case is alrowed. Needless to say, the accuscd is at liberty to u,ithdraw the said amount of Rs.2,OO,OOO/ _ (Rupees Two Lakhs only) deposited before the learned )O( Additional Chief Metropolitan

¶51

Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/.K.SAILESHI

¶54

DEPUW REGISTRAR

¶55

NOTE: This Order is amended as per the Court Order dated 20.12.2023 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crt.R.C.No. 2649 ot 2018 for correcting the court name as "XX Additionar chief Metroporitan Magistrate" insteid of "Metropolitan Sessions Cou(" at paragraph No.6.

¶56

This amended order shafl substitute the earrier order which has arready been dispatched on 04.10.2023.

¶57

Sd/.K.SAILESHI DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTI N OFFICER

1 The XX Additional Chief Metropotitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶62

2 The Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.

¶63

3 Two ccs to the Pubric Prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶64

4 One CC to Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Advocate tOpUCl 5 9n" 99^{to Sri Raj Kumar Rudra,Advocate} tOpUCl

¶65

6 Two CD Copies

¶66

(Along with memo or compromise)

¶67

plp *'.-

¶68

HIGH COURT

¶69

DATED:2410712023 20t12t2023

¶70

AMENDED ORDER

¶71

I.A.NO.1 0F 2019 IN/AND

¶72

CRL. R.C. N o.2649 of 201 8

¶73

s€ 6TA r 6
t
4 P
o
I B FLB 202t
o5o
*
.z ) *
'----:=-jt

¶74

ALLOWING THE I.A. AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

i ,t t I

;: li

iffili,d.e. l ;.i,.r I^Fi. :':i{,.;-1* .-l'l: . li ri NY:HGH COTJRT FOR. TTM STATE.OF TELA}IGA}IATAtr. " f: I

¶79

Crl.RC.No. 2ir49 oF zorsL^:l

¶80

Between

¶81

l. 1Ws Swan^Infra Projects and Engineering Pvt.Ltd.^Rep.by itsi : .". t. Director; J.Ravikiran S/o late Safyanarayma Hindu, aged 4.Ziyears, .i'1^{i t:} ,. R/o'Plot No.82, Meenalshi ffig, Mee<iiaoetla Village,' Quthbullapur^Mandal, Raqeariddy Distri<ft.^l iil

¶82

iil
l.
2. J.Ravikiran S/o late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged 42 yeats,
R./o PIot No.82, Meenakshi Estate, Meedimetla Village, , .
Quthbullapur Mandal, Rangareddy Distiidt.
t:;
And i ft.| 'I'
its ProseCutor, ]
t . T: !t1t" of Telangana I R"p. Fy High B F"r"tt : :t:l
I_{i+ fo.r tle StAte of Telangarfd- :,i
Hyderabad. i i i,
I | ''" .t'f
'it
2. P.Srikanth Reddy, S/o Suders[an bc: Propietor o
Maanyi Trading Co, R/o Plot {.Io.7 Shiva Enclave , i $$'**
dld Bowenpally , Secunderab"d'
j Respondertts
I i'!, a..
JOINTM
'|'::-1:
PETITIO
l. It is submitted that in ,Revisi
defacto-complainzint in the
.I.
thal effpt fe defacto-comPl it befB
subInrttdd thtr.in Vlewi of the
l^ . i
iLffruN al Revisi
allciwiDg the ir
,i
.1
Ir, ttr rqys thist pleased to considgr th9 davit
the 2nd Res the and allow. the
Criminal 2649120 s o
orders as it fit and the 11
l:
Accused C
,..1.. Grl
I
}t
t-

Mohd Nizamuddin Taj v. State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Nizamuddin Taj v. State of Ap.

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

S.Munisekhar Vs State of Ap.

M.B.Vijaya Kumar Vs State of Ap.

Chandra Shekar Vs State of Telangana

K. Narsimhulu Naidu Vs T. Rajeswari

Boina.Prasad Vs State of Ap.

Narsing Venkateshwarlu and another Vs State of Telangana