Allowed

M.Janardhan Reddy v. B.Ananthamma

Telangana HC6 Mar 2020CRLRC/7/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The Court recorded a post-conviction compromise between parties via Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., relying on Domodar S. Probhu, and ordered the revision petitioner's acquittal with directions to deposit court fees.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed in terms of compromise; the accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 NI Act.

M.Janardhan Reddy Vs B.Ananthamma — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI

¶5

r.A.NO.2 0F 2020

¶6

IN / AND

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 7 OF 2019

¶8

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment daled 26h012O18 in Crl.A.No.1B2 ol 2015 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad confirming the conviction and sentence the Order daled 2710112015 in CC No.21712013 on the file of the ll Special Magistrate Court, at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

l.A.NO.2 0F 2020:

¶10

Between:

¶11

B.Ananthamma, W/o. Anthireddy, R/o. Chandrayanguda (V), Kothuru (M), IVlahaboobnagar District

¶12

And

¶13

........Petitioner/ Respondent No.1

¶14

'1 . M.Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy, R/o. H.No.18-359, Vijaynagar Colony, Farooqnagar, Shamshabad (lt/), Ranga Reddy District

¶15

...REVISION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO,1

¶16

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

¶17

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶18

Petition under Section 320(2) 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 acquit the petitioner in view of the compromise entered between the respondent No.1 and the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.7 o'f 2019.

¶19

cRL.R.C.NO.7 0F 2019:

¶20

Between

¶21

M.Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy, R/o. H.No.18-359, Vijaynagar Colony, Farooqnagar, Shamshabad (M), Ranga Reddy District

¶22

...REVISION PETITIONERi ACCUSED

¶23

And

¶24

'1 . B.Ananthamma, W/o. Anthireddy, R/o. Chandrayanguda (V), Kothuru (I/), Mahaboobnagar District

¶25

. . .. . ... Respondenu comprainant

¶26

The State of Telangana, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶27

This Revision Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri L.Harish, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.7 of 2019 and for the Respondent No.1 in lA No.2 of 2020 and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 in Crl.R.C.No.7 of 2019 and for the Respondent No.2 in lA No.2 of 2020 of Sri M.Chinna Swamy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in Crl.R.C.No.7 of 2019 and Respondent No.1 in lA No.2 of 2020.

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

IIONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶30

l.A.No.2 of 2020 ln/and (:lirlMlNAL REVISION CASE No.7 of 2019

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The revisi,on petitioner, who is the accused in^(-.C,No.217 of 2013 on the file of the ll Speciat Magistrate Cyberabad, Rajendranagar Ranga Reddy District, fited this Crirninal Revision Case under Secl.ions 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. chattenging lhe conviction and sentence passed in the above C.C., for the offerrce punishabte under Section^' 38 of the Negotiabte lnstruments Acl., 1 381, which was confirmeri by the tearned V Additionat Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, by its judgment, dat:rd 26.10.201 8.

¶33

During pendency of the Criminal Revision, l.r.No.2 of^'2070 came to be filerd by the first respondent to record the compromise. Atong with the petition, a joint memo which is sigrted by the parties and tl'rr:jr counset, photographs of the partieri and Photostat copies of their-Aadhar Cards came to be fited. lt s stated'in the affidavit that at the intervention of elders and wetl lvishers, the parties have settled their disputes [ong back and 1.he revision petitioner paid the compensation amount of Rs.5,tJ0,()00/- to the first respondr,rnt.

¶34

Today, both the parties are present before this Court and they were identif ied by their respective counset. Tl- is tlourt, when examined, tl 3 first respondent/complainant, subrn ttel that out of her own votrtion and without there being any pressure, she has

¶35

¶36

entered into compromise and she has no objection in case the petitioner has been acquitted for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiabte lnstruments Act, 1881 .

¶37

4\ ln Domodar S.Probhu v. Soyed Bobalal (H)1 the Apex Court has categoricatty hetd that "white exercising power under Section 147 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881 , the Court can proceed with the compromise even after recording the conviction. "

¶38

ln view of the aforesaid principtes of [aw, and in the tight of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the compromise memo filed by both the parties is recorded and l.A.No.2 of 2020 is ordered.

¶39

Accordingty, the Crimina[ Revision Case is attowed in terms of compromise, setting aside the^judgments dated 27.01.2018 and 26.10.2018 passed in C.C.No.217 of 2013 on the fite of the ll Special Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District and in Crt.A.No.'l 82 of 2015 on the fite of the V Additionat Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, respectively and the revision petitioner/ accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, 188'l . However, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- before the Tetangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and the first respondent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/-

¶40

'^{(2olo) s scc663}

¶41

¶42

before the Tetangana High court Bar Association, withi. a ceriod of

¶43

two weeks from 1:oday.

¶44

Misceltaneous petitions, if any, pending, shatt stard c.osed. Note: Conditional Order passed by Court dated 61312020 amount has been 1:aid to Telangana High Court Advocate Associalion an amount of Rs.5,0001 vide USR No.18454/2C,ll0 enclosed herewith)

¶45

Sd/-IJ4,VI JAYA BHASKAR D=PLITY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII d SE]TION OFFICER

¶46

¶47

The V Additional i\rletropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga RedCy Dlstrict L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶48

The Special Judicial Magistrate Court No.ll, at Rajendranagar, Flanga Reddy District.

¶49

One cc to Sri L.Harish, Advocate (OPUC)

¶50

One cc to Sri M.(:hinna Swamy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶51

Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of T.S., High Oourt Buildings, Hyderabad (OU- 1

¶52

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/03/2020

ORDER

LA.NO.2 0F 2020 IN/AND CRLRC.No.T of²⁰¹⁹

¶58

1HI
( o a-
+ (Sr
(.1
0 5 Jilll 2623
,,\ t )t 7
"t/

¶59

ALLOWING THE^CRL.R.C.

¶60

o
r.
(,8*,

¶61

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶62

) I,A.NO.

¶63

oF 2020 IN cRL.R.C.NO.7 0F 2019

¶64

Between:-

¶65

M. lanardhanreddy S/o Gopal Reddy Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.18-359, Vijaynagar Colony, Farooqnagar, Shamshabad (M), Ranga Reddy District.

¶66

Axt D

¶67

...Revision Petitioner

¶68

1 Smt, B. Ananthamma W/o Anthireddy, Aged 50 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Chandrayanguda (V), Kothuru (M), Mahaboobnagar District.

¶69

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

¶70

...Respondents

¶71

JOIN]I MEMO

¶72

It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 has resolved their issue and entered into an amicable settlement at the intervention of elders and well wishers of both of us and to this effect a separate compromise petition is also flled.

¶73

Hence this Joint Memo.

¶74

Hyderabad Dt.^"L) -02-2020

¶75

¶76

EJt"qt-o, I Respondent No.14Petitioner Ctl""^d-</sup>

¶77

Counsel for Respondent No.1

¶78

Counsel for Petitioner

¶79

/
h
s
3qm
fl.
i-
I
-.'::,$e*"1N I T I.IUNDIlEDlRUPEHS
i'l
I
Booo"ea ffi.rrfl I'F.LANGANA l<br>AA BJSe_9e3
.,'"' Cil ;:,,"18ltl'\ut .' looll ., n SHHO i rli
G,?oL"r"SJ ' . -.Il, rr-r, ^tl'\iENtiiJh
-r(/t: r\ 1.li I n;,."U,f0
s,,r,r r,'.|.1.i. .3qt q qJhctr -'ttt-d&y 3lo
f No 1i).;itr, -
rL,.r\ \M
!. i rtqt
r*r wr],,,.rsdf (l)o Hy.J. \i ', l

¶80

t\4 EMORANDU M OF UNDERSTANDIN(i

¶81

This Memor:ndum of Understanding is made and executed on this the l8th day of Feb., 2020 at Hyderabad by and between:

¶82

SMT. B. ANANTHAMMA W/o Anthlreddy, Aged 50 years, Occ:Agricull.ure, R/o Chandrayanguda (V), Kothuru (M), Mahaboobnagar District.

¶83

(Hereinafter callec the First Party)

¶84

ANI)

¶85

M. IANARDHANREDDY S/o Gcpal Reddy Aged aDout 40 years,
Occ: Businers;s, R/o H.No.1B-359, Vijaynagar Colony,, Fairooqnagar,
Shamshabacl (M), Ranga Reddy District.
(Hereinafter callt:rl the Second Party)
q,,).\ ,q, Contd.2.
lo
( (tvrl ,lr t t
2
6 BV'*-"^
.r/" B A"&; R q.2
96 Sz.t"qqqg

¶86

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶87

Between:-

¶88

Smt. B. Ananthamma W/o Anthireddy, Aged 50 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Chandrayanguda (V), Kothuru (M), Mahaboobnagar District.

¶89

... Petitioner/Respondent No. 1

¶90

1 M. lanardhanreddy S/o Gopal Reddy Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1B-359, Vijaynagar Colony, Farooqnagar, Shamshabad (M), Ranga Reddy District.

¶91

... Revision Petitioner/Accused

¶92

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

¶93

... Respondent/Respondent

¶94

AFFr^pAVrT

¶95

I Smt. B. Ananthamma Wo Anthireddy, Aged 50 years/ Occ:Agriculture, R/o Chandrayanguda (V), Kothuru (M), Mahaboobnagar District, do hereby solemnly afflrm and sincerely state on oath as under.

¶96

I am the deponent herein ancl respondent No.1 in the main Criminal Revision Case as such I am well acquainted with the facts deposed hereunder.

¶97

I submit that the above Criminal Revision Case was preferred seeking to suspend the sentence of simple imprisonment of one year and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000 l- uls 357 (3) Cr.P.C. imposed by the II Special Magistrate at Rajendranagar, R.R.District in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonrrtent for 6 months vide its^judgment in C.C.No.217 of 2013 daled 27-01-2015 and confirmed by the V Additional

¶98

{^" )

¶99

District and Sessions Judge, R.R.District by dism,ssing Crl.A.No.1g2 r 2015 dated 25-10-2019 and grant bair to the revisior petitioner/accused.

¶100

I submit that due to the interference of the viilage and caste erders the matter was amicabry settred in between u:; and I do not want to prosecute any further in the case. I submit that we have entered into a Memorandr:m of Understanding dt.18_02_2020 by reclucing the terms and conditions thereon.

¶101

I subrrit that pending the above Crl.R.C.No 7 af 2019 on a request made by the revision to compromise the case and the :;ame is reduced into writing and I have agreed to accept an amount of Rs.2,70,000/_ from the revision petit oner towards fuil and finar senrement ancr I do not have any future claims with the Revision petitioner.

¶102

It is, tl-erefore, prayed that this Hon,ble CoLrrt rnay be pleased to acquit the peutioner in view of the compromise ent3red between the respondent N..1 and the revision petitioner in CRL R.C.No.7 0F 201g in the interest or justice and be preased to pass such otrer order or orders as this Hon'ble crrurt deems fit and proper in the circumr;tances of the case.

¶103

Sworn and signed before me On this the z'.^r. day of Feb.2020 At Hyderabad.

¶104

¶105

-2-

¶106

WHEREAS the first party is the complainant and the second party is . the accused in C.C.No.217 of 2013 on the file of II Special Magistrate at Rajendranagar, R. R. District.

¶107

WHEREAS the second party filed appeal vide Crl.A.No.182 of 2015 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions ludge, R.R.District.

¶108

AND WHEREAS the Second Party preferred Criminal Revislon Case

¶109

before the Hon'ble High Court vide Crl,R.C.No.7 of 2019 and while the Crl.R.C.NO.7 of 2019 is pending before the Hon'ble Court, both the parties due to the interference of the village and caste elders the matter was amicably settled in between both the parties and they arrived at conrpromrse,

¶110

That the first party is ready to receive and accept an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- from the second party' and the first party assures that this the full and final settlement and she do not have any future claims with the second party.

¶111

That it is agreed by the first party that separate^petitlons for compromise are filed before the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.R.C.No.7 of 2019.

¶112

In witness whereof, both the parties have^put their hands on the day, month and year mentioned hereinabove in the^presence of the following witnesses.

Arri&f Q2'

FIRST PARTY

WITNESSES:

1 N-l L. Lt? -- *Tl'j"' t:'r:r. .,4j (,a KL oDr *'lLlqt-rq J,r t,lU 2

¶117

SECOND PARTY

¶118

g"u,'ffi9*:4 ?6 Sz'tttgqg

M.Janardhan Reddy v. B.Ananthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Janardhan Reddy v. B.Ananthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Kumar Chowdhary Vs The State of Telangana

J. Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Teega Vasantha, And 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana

Srikanth Pasham and 2 others Vs State of Telangana and another

Mr. Omer Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Sadeq Bin Mahfooz Vs The State of Telangana and another