Allowed

Gourireddigari.sridhar reddy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Jun 2022CRLRC/101/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision in a cheque bounce case where the petitioner and complainant settled during pendency. The court allowed the revision and acquitted the petitioner based on the voluntary compromise, citing judicial precedent.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was allowed, judgments in C.C.No.11 of 2015 and Crl.A.No.13 of 2017 were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted. The petitioner must deposit Rs.5,000 towards costs.

Gourireddigari.sridhar reddy Vs State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

l.A.No.1 OF 2022

¶6

rN/ANp CRL.R.C.NO.101 0F 20t8

¶7

Criminal Revision case Under Section 397 & 40'l of Crl.PC against the Judgment in Crl.Appeal No.13 of 2017 dated .1211012017 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District & Sessions(FTC),Medak at SangaReddy.

¶8

Preferred against the Order in CC.No.11 ol 2015 dt. 8/1212016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, SangaReddy.,Medak District.

¶9

Between

¶10

Gourireddigari Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Late Ramachandra Reddy, Occ: Business, Fl/o Togarpally village,now C/o Padari, 3rd Venture, ODF Colony, Opp Pepsi company, Rajampet, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. (Present Sanga Reddy Distrtict).

¶11

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

'I . State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Cou( of Andhara
Pradesh at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra
Pradesh.

¶14

...RESPONDENT No.1

¶15

Singapuram Malla Reddy,S/o Malla Reddy, aged 55 years,
Occ: Business, RyoH.No.6-3-1, Near HP Gas Office, Guru Nagar
Colony,Sadasivpet town and Mandal, Medak District.

¶16

(Present Sanga Reddy District).

¶17

...RESPONDENT No.2/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶18

IA NO: 2 OF 20'18

¶19

Petition under Section 394(1) CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bb pleased to suspend the operation of the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.11 of2015, by^judgment dated 08-12-2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile court, Sanga Reddy, Medak District, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.13/2017 by Judgment dated 12-10-2017 on the file of the ll addational District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Medak at Sanga Reddy, Pending final disposal of the main Revision case.

¶20

lA NO: 4OF 2 0¹ 8

¶21

Petition und{ r Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstarces stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to extend} the time enabling 1le^petitioner to^deposit the^{amountas directed bv this Hon'ble} Court passed ir IA.No. 02 of 2018 in^{Crl.Rc.No.101 of2018} dated 23-01-2018.

¶22

lA NO:^'l oF 2022

¶23

Between

¶24

Srnqapuram vlalla Reddy,S/o Malla Reddy, ageo 55^years, Occ-: Business, lUoH.No.6-3-1, Near HP Gas Office, Guru^{Nagar Colony,Sadasivpet} town and Mand€ l, Medak District.

¶25

(Present Sar ga Reddy Diskict).

¶26

... P ETITIO NE FYRES P ON DE NT NC.iY(: )MPLAINANT

¶27

And

¶28

Gourireddig. ri Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Late Ramachandra^Reddy, Occ^Business, R/o Togarp; lly village,now C/o Padari, 3rd Venture, OOF Cololy, Opp^Pepsi company, F ajampet, Sanga Reddy, Medak District.(Present Sanga Reddy Distrtict).

¶29

,RESPONDENT NO.1/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶30

State of Telz ngana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhara Pradesh at l yderabad, For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶31

...RESPONDENT No.2/FlE SP OD NENT No.1

¶32

Petition u rder Section 320(6) r/w Section 482 of Cr.P C praving that in the circumstances sta:ed in the affidayit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to compound the offence under section 138 of Negotiable lnstruments Act igainst the Respondent No.'l /AppellanvAccused, n view of the compromise betw )en the pa(ies in respect of C.C.No.1'1 of 2015 or the file of tie Judicial First Clas r Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Sanga Reddy.

¶33

This Petit cn coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crilrinal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI PAPAIAH PE )DAKULA, Advocate of the Petitioner anc of the .^.ssistant Public Prosecutor on b(half of the Respondent No.1 and of SRI C SHARAN REDDY, Advocate for th€ Respondent No.2 in Crl.R.C 101 of 2018 anJ petitioner in l.A.No.'1 of 2022.

¶34

The Court delivel:d the following: JUOGMENT

¶35

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY ' I.A.No.l OF 2022 IN/AND Crl.R.C.No.l0r OF 2018

¶36

JUDGN{ENT:

¶37

This criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/ appellant/accused challcnging the judgment dated, 12.10.2017 passed in Crl.A.No. l3 of 2017 by the learned Il-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Medak at Sangareddy, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy, vide^judgment dated 08.12.2016 in C.C.No.11 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶38

During pendency of the criminal revision case, I.A.No.1 of 2022 came to be fited by the second respondent/complainant to record the compromise. Along with the petition, a joint memo which is signed by the parlies and their counsel, photographs ofthe parties and photostat copies of their Aadhar Cards came to be filed. It is stated in the affidavit that at the intervention of elders and well wishers, the parties have settled their disputes and as per the

¶39

)

¶40

settlement i rrived at, the revision petitioner has paid Rs.1,00,000/towards full and final settlement.

¶41

Both .he parties are present before this court today and they were identi ied by their respective counsel. This court, when examined, tl e second respondenVcomplainant subrnitt,:d that out of his own vo ition and without there being any coercion, he has entered into compromise and he has no ob.iection in case the petitioner is acquitted for the charge under Sectiorr I -l8 of the Negotiable L rstruments Act, l88l

¶42

ln Danotlar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal (H1t rhe Apex Court has cz tegorically held that "while exercisitrg ,t,ov'er under Section 147 tf the Negotiable Instruments Act, l88 l, t,lie^(lourt can proceed with the compromise even after recording the conviction."

¶43

In vie,', of the aloresaid principles laid rJou,n in the above decision, and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, I.A.N r. 1 of 2022 is ordered

¶44

Accord ngly, the criminal revision case is allowed in terms of compromise, setting aside the judgntents dated

¶45

(2010) s scc 66i

¶46

¶47

08.12.2016 and 12.10.2017 passed in C.C.No.1l of 2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Special Mobite Cour1, Sanga Reddy, Medak District and Crl.A.No.13 of 2017 , on the file of the learned Il-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Cour1, Medak at Sangareddy respectively and the revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section I 3 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, I 88 I . However, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad within a period of ten days from today and file proof of the same into the Registry.

¶48

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

¶49

SD/-CH.VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY G R //TRUE COPY// SECTI rcE R

¶50

To, 1. The llAdditional^{District & Sessions Judge (FastTrack Court), Medak} Sanga Reddy(with^records)

¶51

1. Theludicial First Class^{Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Sanga Reddy, Medak} District.

¶52

One CC to SRl. PAPAIAH^{PEDDAKULA, Advocate.} [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC^{PROSECUTOR,HighCourt forthe State of Telangana} at Hyderabad.[OUT]

¶53

Two CD Copies^{& along with Joint Memo}

¶54

One Spare CoPY

¶55

The Secretary.^High Court^{Legal ServicesCommittee'Hyderabad.}

¶56

Note: Cost Memo filed by the^{Petitioner/Accused videUSR.No.49162 ot} 2022 dated 171OG12022^{putup with proceedingsheet.} *#

HIGH COUR..

DATED:1 3101i12022

JUDGMENT

CRLRC.No.101 of 2018

7F)7

ALLOWING THE CRL.RC IN TERMS OF COMF'ROMISE

F.1
c.
/b'

I '1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶67

Crl.R.C.No. 101 0F 2018

¶68

Betleen :

¶69

Gourireddigari Sridhar Reddy S/o Late Ramachandra Reddy, Aged 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o'Iogarpally village, now C/o Padari, 3.d Venture, . i ODF Colony,Opp: Pepsi Company, Raiampet, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. (Presenrly Sanga Reddy District).

¶70

...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused AND i 1. Singapuram Malla Reddy S/o Malla Reddy, i Aged 55 years, Occ: Business, I R/o H.No.6-3-1, Near HP Gas Office, Guru Nagar Coloriy, Sadasivpel Town and Mandal, Medak Districr (Presently Sanga Reddy District].

¶71

...Respondent No,1/Respondent No.2/Complainant

¶72

State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State ofTelangana at Hyderabad. ...Respondent o.2/Respondent No.1

¶73

IOTNT MEMC FTLED ON BDHAT HE PETITIONE rCCU S EI ANT RESPONDENT No.1 /COMPLAINANT

¶74

lt is submitted that petitioner filed the above crimina revision case aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against him in C.C.No 1 of 2015 by iudgmbnt dated 08-12-2016 on the file of the Judicial First class Ma strate, Special Mobile Court, sanga Reddy, directing the accused to pay fine of n{.rO,ooO/- in default to suffer Simple lmprisonment for a period of one month ,lpa fu.,i,". directed to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) to {omptainant, which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2017 by Judgment d 72-L0-20L7 on the

f,.r.---->

41fu4

d.t' l I

i r

,L,

file of the ll iadditional^{District & Sessions} Judgt,^{Fast TrackCourt, Medak at Sanga} Reddy.

¶82

¶83

2 It is sirbmitted that due to the intervention of the elders and well-wishers of I bc,th the rti e5 i.e. the Petitioner,/,\ccuscd and the 2nd respondent/defactocomplainant came to a conclusion to settlc thr disputes between them and that during med tation, it is mutually agreerl to close the disFute between them and that I the respondeht No.1/complainant agree(l to lvithdraw the complaint filed against the l Accused, whilh is now^pending before this IJon'ble llourt in the above revision, by satisR/ing wi$ the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for which I taken steps for withdrawal of the said amoint from the lower court which ryas rleposited by the appellant/accused. j The compromise is entered with free will and consent and without any undue I influence frorp any one. Hence, fiting the present joint memo. Since the matter is settled out oficourt during the pendency of the criminal revision and in view of the compromise between the parties, it is iust and ne(essary in the interest of iustice to compound the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and set asidc the conviction and sustenance passed in C.C.No.11 of 2t115 by iudgment dated 08-132016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Cour! Sanga Reddy, which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2017 by fudgment dated 121.O-2017 on the file of the ll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Medak at Sanga Reddy.

¶84

lt is therefore prayed that this Hon'l)le Cotrrl. ma1, be pleased to compound the offence under section 138 of Negotiable lnstrument Act and set aside the conviction

¶85

-sfuzz 6--.'-

¶86

¶87

and sustellance passed in C.C.No.11 of 2015 by iudgment dated 08-12-2016 on the file of the ludicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Santa Reddy, which is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No,13 of 2017 by Judgment dated 1Z-10-2017 on rhe file of the II Additional District & Sessions ludge, Fast Track Court, Medak at Sanga Reddy and pass such other order or orders as tiis Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances ofthe case.

¶88

llyderabad, Date:. 73-06-2022

¶89

A-s.---r ( Pe ti t-r o n e i/Acc u s e dl 0'V-'v'r+ Cou nsel for the Pcritioner 1r*^",o44{#r,^,nun1

¶90

Counsel for tf,E 1"t Respondent
I
I
I
I
I

Gourireddigari.sridhar reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gourireddigari.sridhar reddy v. State of Telangana

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

Mekala Anjaneyulu Vs Mekala Manga

M/s. Unitek Power Solutions India Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana

Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, Hyd Vs State of a.P., Rep. through P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Vanga Devakrupa Vijay Krian Vs D. Kavitha

Naga Kumari , Lakshmi Kumari Vs P. Bhaskar Reddy and Another

Pradeep Manik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh