Allowed

G.Srinivasa Rao, Hyd v. Punjab National Bank, Hyd and Ano

Telangana HC15 Sept 2022CRLRC/105/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed an Interlocutory Application to record a compromise in a Criminal Revision Case arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court noted the petitioner had paid the dues and received a 'No Due' certificate from the respondent bank, leading to the court recording the compromise and acquitting the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was allowed; the petitioner was acquitted of the charge of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by recording the compromise; the petitioner was permitted to withdra

G.Srinivasa Rao, Hyd Vs Punjab National Bank, Hyd and Ano — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶5

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.1 OF 2022 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 10s OF 2016 AND

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 105 OF 2016

¶8

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.1 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

G.Srinivasa Rao, S/o. G. Lakshmaiah, Occ. Business, Rl/o. D.No.11-249 HPC Road Moosapet Hyderabad

¶11

... Petitione r/Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Punjab National Bank, Sanathnagar Branch, represented by its Personal Chief Manager, Office at Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

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

¶15

...Respondents/Respondents

¶16

Petition under Section 320 (2) read with 482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise in Crl.R.C. No. 105 of 2016 pass orders of acquittal of petitio ner/petitioner who is sentenced vide judgment in CC.No. 139 of 2013 dated. 16.08.2013 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of the Special Magistrate Cyberabad, at Kukatpally which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Xl Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar vide Judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 517 of 2013 dated. 07.O1 .20'16, in the interest of^justice.

¶17

Bail Slip: The Petitioner/Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated '1210112016 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.14.t of 2016 in Crl.RC No.l05 of 2016

¶18

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.p.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated. 07.O1.2016 made Crl.A.No .517 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Xl Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), at Ranga Reddy District against the judgment dated 16.08.2013 made in C.C.No.139 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Special Magistrate Cyberabad at Kukatpally Court, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

Between:

¶20

G.Srinivasa Rao, S/o. G. Lakshmaiah, Occ. Business, RUo. D.No.11-249 HpC Road Moosapet Hyderabad

¶21

...Petitioner/Appellant

¶22

AND

¶23

1 Punjab National Bank, Sanathnagar Branch, Sanathnagar Hyderabad, represented by its Personal Chief Manager, M.K. Varma, S/o. L.R. Varma,

¶24

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

¶25

...Respondents

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶27

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay in representing the above Criminal MP.SR.No. 19232 of 2019 in CR|.R.C.NO.105 of 2016 by 35 days or else the petitioner Bank will suffer serious loss and hardship.

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶29

Petition under section 482 cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,00,0001 deposited by the respondent No.1/accused herein from the credit of cc.No. 139 of 2013 on the file of the Special lrlagistrate Court No.1, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of justice and equity.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner^{(in both):SRIA. H. CHAKRAVARTHY}

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1(in both} ):^{SRI G. SRINIVASA RAO'}

¶32

REPRESENTED SRI K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.2⁽ⁱⁿ both):^{THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)} The Cour.t made the following: COMMON^ORDER

¶34

\ t

¶35

I I

¶36

l'llE l{O\OtiltAI}LU DR..IUS-I'ICE (i. I{ADHA trAn-l

¶37

lrrlcrlocutorv A pplica tion No.l of 2022 tn Crinrinal Itcvision Case No.l 05 of 20I (r and Crinrinal Revision Case No. I05 of20t6

¶38

COMMON oITt) F]R:

¶39

This criminal Revision case is filed by the revision petitioner / appellant under Sections 397 & 401 of criminal procedure code, 1973 aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.01.2016 passed in criminal Appeal No.5l7 of 2013 on the file of the court of the XI Additional District & sessions Judge (Fast Track court), Ranga Reddy Districr, against the judgment dated 16.0g.2013 passed in calendar case No-139 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Special Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally Court, Ranga Reddy District.

¶40

Interlocutory Application No.l of zo22 in criminal Revision case No.l05 of 2016 is liled by the revision petitioner along with Joint Memo praying this court to record the comprornise by acquitting the petitioner from the charge of Section 138 of N.l. Act.

¶41

Mr. G. Srinivasa Rao, represented by his counsel and respondent No.l, representing the Punjab Natior.ral Bank, are present in the Court to-day.

¶42

Both parties, in the presence of respective counsel, stated that they had anived at a settlement vide Joint IVIemo aforestated, and the lear-ned counsel for

¶43

i.irc I 05 2.

¶44

¶45

the Respondent No. I -Bank stated that tl're entire arnounl rvas rcccived lrom the revision petitioner and that the Bank had also issued 'No Due Certiflcatc', dated 15.06.2022 to that effect and also eff-ected closure of account.

¶46

In view of the said settlement between the partics, the I.A. is allorved. Cor.rsequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also allowed acqLritting the petitioner from the charge of Section i38 of N.l. Act by recording tl're said compfollilse.

¶47

As recorded in the said Joint Memo of compromise, the revision petitioner is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount of Rs" 10,00,000/(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) which was directed to be deposited by the Court below in C.C.No.139 of 2013 on the file of the Special Magistrate, at Kukatpally.

¶48

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed as above. No costs.

¶49

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in tl'ris Revision, shall

¶50

stand closed.

¶51

SD/-K.SRINIVAS o JOINT REGI

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To, 1. The XI Additional^{District and Sessions Judge (FTC)'at Ranga Reddy} District (With records^{if anY)}

¶55

The Special Magistrate^{Cyberabad, at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District} (With records if anY)

¶56

ihe Superintendent,^{Central Prison, Cherlapally,RangaReddy District'}

¶57

Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor, High courtfor the state of Telangana,} at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶58

One CC to Sri Avancha^{H Chakravarthy, AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶59

One CC to Sri. K.^{RaghavendraRao, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶60

Two CD CoPies

¶61

One SPare^CoPY

¶62

IVMK gbr /Alono with a coov of the Joint^Memo)

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510912022

COMMON ORDER

1I n[T 2fl2 , 'i

lnterlocutory Application No.1 of 2022 ln Criminal Revision Case No: 105 of 2016 And

¶68

Criminal Revision Case No: 105 of 2016

¶69

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

: I I I I I

N,GMORANDIIM^{OF CRIMIIIALMISC PETITION} TINDER SECTION^{482 OF CR.P.C.}

¶75

HIGH COI'RT^{FOR TrIE STATE OF TELANGANA} :: AT FII.DERABAD::

¶76

LA.NO. oF 2022 IN cRl. R.C. NO.^{105 0F 2016}

¶77

BETWEEN:-

¶78

G. Srinivasa^{Rao,S/o G. Laxmaiah,} Aged about⁵² Years,^{Occ: Business,} O/o Door No.11-249,^{HPC Road,} Moosapet,^HYderabad

¶79

. Petitioner/Petitioner

¶80

AND

¶81

Punjab National^Bank, Sanathnagar^Branch,

¶82

Rep, by its Personal^{Chief Manager,} Office at: Sanathnagar,"HYderabaC

¶83

The State ofTelangana, through the Public^Piosecutor, .. .Respondents/ResPondents High Court^{at Hyderabad} JO MO ILE BY PET o R& SPO E l\ 1

¶84

f . it is submitted^{that, the respondentNo- 1 bank frled a complaintU/sec'138 of} Negotiable Insffument^{Act against petitionerand the same was taken on file by the} SpecialMagistrateCourtatKukatpallyinC.C.No.l3g/2OL3.AftertrialtheSpecial Magistrate^{Court convictedthe petitionerand sentenced to undergo simple} prisonment for 2^{yearsand also to pay the compensationof Rs'61'87'652/- by its}

¶85

Pu':t8! - -.^:...4 i1^t:::'"- 1 fu1Fo{ ':.'::.':1 r - ,. '^: '..-: FAv0 :i : l-,'rr¹*-i e^{q'i:rlt (ftE)}

¶86

¶87

<br>

¶88

,ludgment dared l6_0g_2( Against the said judgr Criminar Appear No.517J13' .2013 ntnt the pedtioner prefe,ecl onrhe.fiIe of XI Adrr. und sessions Judge (FTc), R.R. Distri* at L.B.Nagar. The Hon,bre .ou.,otrr.r", by its judgmenr dated 07_01_ 2016 dismissed the peridoner,s appeal andby con tufir m rnc the convicrion, senrence and award of compensado, ",":"; :^:"" :v passed against him' Being aggtievedby the same the petidoner preferred the pre sen t criminal revision peddc rn before this Hon'ble court and this Hon'ble court w* s pleased to suspend the judgment passed in Criminal Appear No_5r712013.

¶89

It is submitted thar, during the penclency of the ab petrfion, the pedtioner approactred the respondent No. I an ove criminal revision d thereby agreed to pay rh e due amount in one dme seftlemenr ior which the res pondent No.I bank agreed and there was compromise took place jl between the partres. In pursuance of the same the pedtioner paid the total amount covered by th e cheque amounr in one dme settlement and to that extent the responcienf No.1 ban k issued a No_due certificate dated 15_06_2022 in favour of rhe pefitoner in which it was clearly mendon that the said accounl was closed. In view of thc senlement too k place in befween pedfioner and the respondent No.I, lt rs most humbly prayed that this Hon,ble court maYbe pleased to record the co mpromise and dispose the criminal revision petrtion by acqultting the petidoner tlu.nilq i.; N/ .6-u^t"""",' qf- J[ 1,a"};r *{ 1,5.i1{.A-^<..r \t t "{ O:.+ ,j^ e< 13 9113^{:ff31_*z^ee4 , *\e yrr-.,.1a. o-nw Lu/} ""##:Hirmf#"":.',11;"-q;,

¶90

¶91

¶92

It is therefore prayed that this Hon,ble High Cor irt may be pleased to record the compromise in Crl.R.c t'*o'o'^{of 2ar6 by acquifting the petitioner} from the charge of I3g of N.I Act, ,n the intercst ofjustice and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances ofthe case.

¶93

@r-r I )- .+7 PETITIONER/PETrTroNER co LrNs EL FoR rHEGl?#ffir.ur,r,oNE;

¶94

Hl,g###.l!r:m *'*H,Wh:,uNrNol

¶95

x COLAISEL FOR R-ESPONDENT N6 I

¶96

Place: FIYDERABAD lJated.-

G.Srinivasa Rao, Hyd v. Punjab National Bank, Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Srinivasa Rao, Hyd v. Punjab National Bank, Hyd and Ano

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

S.Pavan Kumar, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Utti Ramachandram, Ananthapur Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd

Mohammed Ahmed Pasha Vs Shake Zareen , Zareena Sultana

Syndicate Bank S.R.Nagar Branch Vs Andhra Bank and 2 Others

E. Munichandra Goud, Mahabubnagr Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Mohd. Ayub Pasha Vs The State of Telangana