Allowed

G.Venkatramaiah v. N.Siddulu Yadav

Telangana HC13 Jun 2019CRLRC/21/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. regarding a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court allowed the petition in terms of a settlement recorded between the parties, quashing the conviction and sentencing the accused, while directing a nominal deposit to the Legal Services Committee.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, accused acquitted, directed to deposit Rs.5,000 with Legal Services Committee.

G.Venkatramaiah Vs N.Siddulu Yadav — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶2

I.A.No.4 of 2019

¶3

In/and

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 21 of 2019

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

The revision petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.65 of 2014 on the file of the II Special Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, filed this Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.65 of 2014 on the file of the Special Magistrate Court-II, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.444 of 2015 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶7

During pendency of the Criminal Revision, I.A.No.4 of 2019 came to be filed by the first respondent to record the compromise. Along with the petition, a joint memo came to be filed duly signed by both the parties, inter alia stating that at the intervention of elders and well wishers, the parties have settled their disputes in terms of the compromise. The said joint memo has been supported by the affidavit of the first respondent.

¶8

Today, both the parties are present before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel. This Court, when examined, both the parties have stated that at the instance of the elders, they have settled the matter out of the Court and the

¶9

¶10

complainant has no objection for setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/ accused.

¶11

In the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the compromise memo filed by both the parties is recorded and I.A.No.4 of 2019 is ordered.

¶12

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in terms of compromise, setting aside the judgments dated 29.05.2015 and 31.12.2018 passed in C.C.No.65 of 2014 on the file of the II Special Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar and in Crl.A.No.444 of 2015 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, respectively and the petitioner/ accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/ - before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad.

¶13

1. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

¶14

________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶15

13.06.2019 gkv

¶16

¶17

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶18

gkv

¶19

I.A.No.4 of 2019
In/and
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 21 of 2019
Dated: 13.06.2019

G.Venkatramaiah v. N.Siddulu Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Venkatramaiah v. N.Siddulu Yadav

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

Dr. P. Vijaya Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Mallu Tataji Vs State of Telangana

K.V. Rajasekhar Reddy Vs The Senior Intelligence Officer

The State of Telangana Vs L.v.S.Murthy

S.P. Alamelu , Sujitha Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Salman Vs The State of Telangana