Allowed

I.Sheshagiri Rao, Hyderabad., v. Dr. K.Lahiri, Sec-Bad and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022CRLRC/1213/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal revision by recording a compromise under Sections 147 of the NI Act and 320(2) Cr.P.C., holding that courts can compound offence despite prior conviction, and acquitted the accused. Petitioner directed to deposit costs.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, respondents acquitted, directed to deposit Rs. 5,000 as costs.

I.Sheshagiri Rao, Hyderabad., Vs Dr. K.Lahiri, Sec-Bad… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

\ \

¶2

Bail Slip: The Petitioner/Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 27.04.2017 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1961 of 2017 in Crl.RC No.'1213 of 2017.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY l.A.No.1 OF 2022 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1213 F2 17

¶7

l.A.No.1 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr. K. Lahiri, S/o. Kalidas Lahiri, aged about 67^years, Occ: Business, Fl/o.Plot No. 179, Dhanalakshmi Coeiierative Society, Mahendra Hills, East lVaredpally, Secunderabad.

¶10

... Petitione r/Res ponde nt No.1/De-facto Complainant

¶11

AND

¶12

l.Sheshagiri Rao, Sio. l.Subba Rao, aged about 62^years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.53A, Road No.11, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 M/s Sovereign Distillers Limites, Represented by Sri S. Seshagiri Rao, Office at H.No.7-1-19l3, Kundanbagh, Begampet, Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondents/Petitioners 1 and 2/Accused No.1 and 2

¶15

The State of Telangana, represented'by Public Prosecutor, High Court,^at Hyderabad.

¶16

...RespondenUComplainant Petition under Section 147 of N.l.Act Read with 320^{(2) of Cr.P.C} praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit and Joint Memo of Compromise filed therewith, the High Court^{may be pleased to record} the compromise entered into by both the^parties i.e. the^{petitionerand} respondent No. 2 and to consequently compound the^{offenceUls. 147 of} N.l. Act and U/s.320 (2) of Cr.P.C. alleged to be committed^{U/s. 138 of} N.lAct by the respondents 1 and 2, and may set aside the^{conviction and} sentences confirmed by the learned Special^{Judgefor Trial of Offences} under SC, ST (POA) cum Vl A.M.S.J. at Secunderabad^{in Crl.Appeal No.}

¶17

968 of 2015, dated 01.02.2017 against the Judgment in C.C.No. 235 of 2012 passed by the learned V Special [Vagistrate, at Hyderabad and may allow the Crl.RC filed by both the respondents and may acquit them for the charge U/s. 138 of N.l. Act, in the interest of justice

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1 213 0F 2017

¶19

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 and 4Ol of Cr.p.C against the Judgment dated. 13.01.201 5 passed c.c.No.235 ot zo12 on the file of the court of the Special Magistrate-V, Hyderabad, confirming the Judgment dated. 01 .02.2011 passed in crl.A.No.968 ol 2015 on the file of the court of the special Judge for Trial offences under s.cs and S.Ts (PoA) Actcum-Vl Additional tvletropolitan sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

¶20

Between:

¶21

!$hep.hagqi^{Rao, Slo. late l.Subba Rao, aged about 62 years, Occ.Business,} Rl/o. Plot No. 53A; Road No.11, Film Nagai Jubilee Hills. Hyderabad.

¶22

: ...Petitioner/Appellants/Accused

¶23

AND

¶24

Qr.^{K.Lahiri, S/o. Kalidas Lahiri, aged about67 years, Occ. Business,Fl/o.} Plot No. 179, Dhanalakshmi Coeiierative Society, Mahendra Hilts, East Maredpally, Secunderabad.

¶25

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

¶26

...Respondents/Respondents/Complainant

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner in Crl.RC. and Respondent No.1 and 2: SRI K. SAI BABU

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No1 in Crl.RC and Petitioner in l.A.No.1 ot 2022: T. CHANDRA SHEKAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respoirdent No2 in Crl.RC and Respondent No.3 in l.A.No.1 of 2022: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶30

The Court made the folloraiing: COMMON ORDER

¶31

¶32

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY I.A.No. L of 2022 In and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1213 of 2OL7

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This revision is filed by the petitioner/appellant/ accused challenging the^judgment dated Ol.O2.2Ol7 passed 1n Criminal Appeal No.968 of 2015 by the learned Special Judge for trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes/the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of cum Atrocities) Act VI Additional Metroplitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Magistrate-V, Hyderabad, vide judgment dated 13.11.2015 in C.C. No.235 of 2Ol2 for the offence under Section - 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶35

2\ During pendency of the Criminal Revision, I.A.No. I of 2022 came to be filed by the first respondent to record the compromise. Along with the

¶36

petition, a joint memo which is signed b'r the parties and their counsel, photographs of the 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 settlement arrived at, the revision petitioners in totai have paid Rs.50,00,00O1- by way of Demand Drafl No.S1377 1, dated 20.04.2022 towards fulI and final settlement in this case and also in six other cases disposed of today. 3) Both the parties are present befort: this Court today and they were identified by their respective counsel. This Court. when examined, the first respondent/complainant submitted that out of his own volition and without there being any coercion, he has entered into compromise and he has no objection in case the petitioner is acquitted for the r:harge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 188 1

¶37

¶38

¶39

ln Damodar S.Prq.bhu u. Saged Babalql (H)1 the Apex Court has categoricaily held that "tuhile exercising power uruder Section 147 of the Negotia le Instruments Act, 18B1, the Court can proceed uith t compromise euen after recording the coruuiction."

¶40

In view of the aforesaid principles laid down in the above decision, and in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, LA.No.1 of 2022 I S ordered.

¶41

Accordingly, the Crimina-l Revision Case is allo d in terms of compromise, setting aside the judgmen S dated 13. 1 1.2015 and O1.17.2OI7 passed C.C.No.235 of 2Ol2 on the file of the Speci Magistrate-V, Hyderabad and in Cr1.A.No.968 of 201 5 on the file of the Special Judge lor Trial of Offence)S under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additionril Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderab ad respectively ald the revision petitioner/accused i S

¶42

'^{(2olo) 5 scc 663}

¶43

¶44

acquitted fcrr the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 188 1. tlowever, the revision petitioners are directed to deposit arr amount of Rs.S,OOO/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs before the Secretar5r, High Court Lr:gal Services Committee, Hyderabad within a period of ten days from today and file proof of the same into the Registry.

¶45

7\ Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shal1

¶46

stand closed.

¶47

SD,'-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

The Special Magistrate-V,^{Hyderabad.(Withrecords)}

¶50

The Special Judge for^{Trial Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Vl} Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^{Secunderabad.}

¶51

Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor,HighCourt for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶52

The Secretary, Telangana Hlgh^{Court Legal Services Committee,Hyderabad}

¶53

One CC to Sri K. Sai Babu,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

One CC to Sri T. Chandra Shekar,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

Two CD Copies

¶56

B. One Spare Copy

¶57

(Along with a copy of the Joint Memo)

MMA

{

Cost Memo:

Note: Amount^paid by K. Sai^{Babutowards imposedby Cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five} thousand) to The Secretary,^{Telangana High Court Legal Services} Committee, Hyderabad.

¶62

Received a Demand Draft Bearing No. 569134, Dale:28.04.2022

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810412022

COMMON ORDER

l.A.No.1 of 2022 ln/And

¶68

HE SIA 14-
(
J e
oo 27 JUN 2ffi2
o
* a
Fs;:ara',r, rJ)

¶69

CRLRC.No.1213 of 2017

¶70

ALLOWING THE CRIIUITTRI REVISION CASE

,1
',4_
,
,

IN THE HIGH COUR.T OF TELANGANA AT HYDIIRABAD I A.No. OF 2022

¶75

¶76

IN Crl.R.C.No. 1213 OF 2017

¶77

Betlveen:

¶78

Dr. K. Lahiri, S/o. Kalidas Lahiri,

¶79

Aged about 67 years, Occ: Business,

¶80

R./o. Plot No. 179, Dhanalakshmi Co-opr:rative^Society,I Mahendra Hills, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

¶81

.. Petitio er / Respondent No. 1/ De-facto complainant

¶82

AND

¶83

Sheshagiri Rao, S/o. I. Subba^Rao, Aged about 62 years. Occ: Busiucss,

¶84

Rio. Plot No. 53A, Road No.^{I 1,} Film^Nagar,

¶85

Jubilee Hills. I Iyderabad.

¶86

2 M/s. Sovereign Distillers Ltd., Rep. by Sri. S. Seshagiri Rao, Olfice^{at H.No.7-1-1913,} Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hydelabad.

¶87

... Respond nts/Petitionersl&2/ Accused No. 1&2

¶88

The State ofTqlAng trs pondent / Complainant

¶89

JO INT MEMO FILIID I}Y BOTH^THE ARTI[,S

¶90

1 . It is submitted that the^{petitioner filed sevenc} es under Section 138 complaints against Respondents No.^{1 & 2 be} re leamed Xth Addl. C.M.Magistrate, at Secunderabad.,^{wherein the C} urt recorded his Swom Statements and took cognizance^{againstthe res} ndent No. 1, & 2 and issued summons to them. Therealter ail seven^cas transferred to leamed V Spl. Magistrate, Llyderabad^{fol trial all the cas} were new numbered a) C.C.No. 232 of 2012, b) CC^{No. 299'of 2012,} CC No. 235 of2012, d) CC No. 298 of2012, e) CC^{No.300of2012,} CC No. 297 of,2012, g) CC No. 234 of 2012.In all the cases responde t No. 1 and 2 received summons and contested thc^cases. I

¶91

¶92

I ,

¶93

It is submitted that to suppon of rhe case. the peritioner filed his evidence affidavit in all the seven cases and documents and they were received by the court and marked as Exhibirs. Then the court examined Respondents I & 2 U/s.313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the respondent No. I given his evidence and filed documentS and they r,vere received and marked. The Court heard the arguments on both the sides and passed judgments in all seven cases on 13.1 1 .2015 separately convicLing the Respondents No. i and 2 for the charge U/s. 138 of N.l.Act, sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and pay fine of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand only) to both the accused total Rs.60,000/- (Sixr),Thousand only) in default both shall undergo further Simple Imprislnment for 3 months,

¶94

'The accused No. 1 being Director olCompany shill undergo punishment passed against Company Accused No.2 botll sentences shalI run concuffently fine amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to petitioner after appeal time or after disposal ofthe Appeal.

¶95

It is submitted that in C.C.No. 299/2012 rhe same fudgment is passed by the learned Spl. Magistrate is thct of CC No. 232 o,, ,Orr.ln CC No. 235 of 2012 the learned Spt.Magistrate ordered sentenle to respondents 1 & 2, for six months and fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Trventy Thousand only) in default of fine they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and out of ljne amount Rs. 19,000/- to be paid to Petitioner / Complainant. In CC No. 298 of 2012 also the same judgment is passed by the learned Spl.Magistrate that of CC No. 232 of 2d12 and in CIC No. 297 of 2012 the same^judgment is passed in CC No. 232 of 2012.

¶96

It is subrnitted that against the conviction and sent ce in all seven cases the respondents 1 and 2 filed Criminal Appeals be re the learned M.S.J. Court at Hl,derabad and the sarne was rransferred t Learned Spl.Judge for Trial of offences under S.C. & S.Ts (POA) Act cum VI Addl.

¶97

(

¶98

M.S.J.Court at Secundcrabad vide Crl.App:No. 874 of 2015 against CC No. 232/2012 in Crl.App.No .97) 12015,,a ga;nst CC No. 299/2012 and App.No. 968/2012 against CC No. 2 35/2012 Crl. App.97 3 /201 5 against CC No. 298t2012 Crl.App.No. 96912015 against CC No.300/2012 Crl.App.No. g7O/2012 against CC No.2 97/2012 and Crl.App.No. 972/2015 against CC No. 23412012 weret umbered and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hear the argum ts from both the sides and pass separate judgments on.01.02.2017 by nfirming the judgments of Iearncd V Spl. Magisrrate at Hyderabad.

¶99

It is further submitted that agairisi the same, r above pondents 1 and 2 filed the

¶100

a. C-rl.R.C.No .1211 of 2017 agaiirst Crl.App. o.974/2015 in CC No.

¶101

b. Crl.R.C.No.l2t2 of 2017 against Crl.App 299/2012 o.97112015 in CC No.

¶102

ri'l

¶103

c. Crl.R.C.No.l2t3 of 2017 against Crl.App. 23s/2012' o.988/2015 in CC No.

¶104

d. Cri.R.C.No .1214 ol 2017 against Crl.App. 298/2012 o.973/2015 in CC No.

¶105

e. Crl.R.C.No.12l5 of 2017 against Crl.App. 300/2012 .969/2015 in CC No.

¶106

f. Crl.R.C No .1216 of 2Ol7 against Crl,App.N )Q) Dn1') .970/2015 in CC No.

¶107

g. C-rl.R.C.No .1217 of 20]7 against Crl.App.N 234t2012 972/2015 in CC No. Were filed belore this Hon,bie Courf.

¶108

It is further submitted submit that pending Crl R.C. before this Honible

¶109

Cour1, the respondents I & 2 can_rc, foryv and entered into oral

¶110

understanding with the petitioner for amicable lement of all the above

¶111

seven cases at the intervention. of elders of oth the sides and well

¶112

wishers. In view of comprornise the responden s 1 and 2 giving D.D. of

¶113

ICICI Bank, Jubilee Hiils Br.anch; Hyderaba vide D.D.No. 513771

¶114

dated 20.04.2022 to the petitioner for Rs.50 ,000/- towards full and

¶115

final settlement for all seven cases, the same is ted by the petitioner.

¶116

¶117

It is therefore prayed that this Flori'blc court may be.pleased to record the compromise entered into by both the partrcs i.c. thc petitioner and respondent No. 2 and to consequently compourrd the olfence I-tis. 147 of N.l. Act & u/s.320 (2) of Cr.P.C. arlegecr to be commitred U/s. 13g of N.I. Act by the respondents 1 & 2, and may set aside the con,iction and sentences confirmed by the learned Special Judge for Trial o1'offences tfier sc, sr (poA) cum vl A.M.S.J' at secunderabad in Crr.App No. qosrzJts, dated 01.02.2017 against the Judgment in c.c.No. 23512012 passed by rhe lear,ed v Spr. Magistrate at Hyderabad and may allow the Crl.l{C filed by both the respondents and consequently rnay acquit thern for the charge U/s. 13g of N.I. Act, and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in e circumstances of the case, in the interest in the interest of.j US US ce. I D-1 h^( a Petitioner / Respondent No. 1/ Respondent Nohh De-facto complainant

¶118

case, in the interest in the interest of.j US US ce.

¶119

a D-1 --:rRL--Respondent Nohh C Respondent :=_o8.L--No. Ic/

¶120

ff Counsel 1br Petitioner / Respondent No. 1/ De-facto complainant

¶121

19.:.lo^1,-Counsel for Re$ondents I & 2

¶122

Place : Hyderabad nO oate lf -o+-zozz

I.Sheshagiri Rao, Hyderabad., v. Dr. K.Lahiri, Sec-Bad and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.Sheshagiri Rao, Hyderabad., v. Dr. K.Lahiri, Sec-Bad and Anr, Rep Pp.

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

Smt.Shobhadevi Vs Sri Mohd.Nayeem

Bathini Rajaiah and Another Vs the State of A.P. and Another

A. Gyneshwar, R.R.Dist. Vs N. Shyam Kumar, Hyd and Ano

I.Sheshagiri Rao, Hyd and Anr., Vs Dr.K.Lahiri, Secunderabad and Anr, Rep Pp.

I.Sheshagiri Rao, Hyderabad and Anr., Vs Dr. K.Lahiri, Secunderabad and Anr, Rep Pp.

I.Sheshagiri Rao, Hyderabad., Vs Dr.K.Lahiri, Secunderabad and Anr, Rep Pp.