Allowed

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

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022CRLRC/1214/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition filed by accused persons challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Following a compromise between the parties after conviction, the vintage judgment was set aside and the accused were acquitted, subject to the payment of court costs.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was allowed in terms of the compromise; the judgments in Crl.A.No. 973 of 2015 and C.C.No. 298 of 2012 were set aside; the accused were acquitted; and a sum of Rs. 5,000 was dire

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH^{DAY OF APRIL}

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH^REDOY

¶6

LA.No.1 OF 2022

¶7

INi AND

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISI ON CASE NO:^{1214o F2017}

¶9

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397^{& 401 of} CrPC against the Judgment made in^{Crl.A,No. 973 of 2015dated} 01-02-2017 on the^file of^{the Court} of^{the Special Judge for Trial of Offences} under SCs & STs(POA)Act-Cum-Vl^{Additionalt,4etropolitan Sessions} Judge Secunderabad, Preferred against^{theOrder made in} C.C.No. 298 of 2012 dated 13-11-2015^{on the file of the Court of the} Special Magistrate-V Hyderabad.

¶10

Between

¶11

Sheshagiri Rao, S/o^{lateLSubba Rao, aged about62.years,Occ:Business,} R/o PloaNo. 53A, Road No.11, Fllm^{Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad}

¶12

2 M/s Sovereiqn Distilleries Ltd, rep.by.Sri^{LSeshagiriRao, Officeat} H.No. 7--1-19/3, Kundanbagh, Begumpet,^Hyderabad. (As described by the complainant in the Complaint Case)

¶13

...PETITIONERS/APPEALLANTS/ACCUSED No. 1& 2

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

The State of Telangana,, Rep.by. through^{P.P, High Court Hyderabad.}

¶17

R E SPON DE NTS/RE SPON DE NTS/COI\4^{PLAIN ANT}

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP. NO: 196^{2 0F2017</sup>}

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the^judgment in Crl.A.No. 973 of^20'15 on the^{file of orders of the} Spl.Judge for Trail of Offences under S.Cs & S.Ts^{(POA) Act-Cum-Vl Addl.} Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, dated^{01-02'2017 pending disposal of} the Criminal Revision Case.

lA NO: 1 OF 2C22

BETWEEN

Dr. K.Lahiri, S/o. Kalidas Lahiri, aged about 67^{years, Occ: Business,} R/o Plot No 179, Dhanalakshmi Coeiierative Society,^{Mahendra Hills, East} l\4ared pally, Secunderabad.

¶25

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.1/ DE.FACTO COMPLAINANT

¶26

ANO

¶27

1 Shesha(liri Rao, S/o late LSubba^{Rao,aged about62 years, Occ:Business,} R/o Plot No. 53A, Road No.1 1, Film Nagar, Jubilee^{Hills, Hyderabad.}

¶28

2 M/s S()vereign Distilleries Ltd, rep.by.Sri LSeshagiri^{Rao, Officeat} H.No. 7-1-1913, Kundanbagh, Begumpet,^Hyderabad. (As desrribed by the complainant in the Complaint Case)

¶29

...RESPONDENTS/PETITONERS 1 & 2 / ACCUSED No. "l& 2 3 The Sta'e of Telangana, Rep.by Public^Prosecutor ,^{High Court Hyderabad.} .,. RES PON D E NT/COM PLAINANT

¶30

Petition under Section 147 N.l.Act^{R/w Section 320(2)of CRPC1 51 CPC} praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of^the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to record the compromise^{enteredintoby} both the partes i.e. the^petitioner and^{respondentNo.2 and to consequently} compound th€ offence Uls. 147 of N.l. Act &^{U/s.320(2) of Cr.p.C. alleged to be} committed U/r;. 138 of N.l Act by the^respondents l&^{2, and mayset asidethe} conviction an,l sentences confirmed by the^{learned Special Judge for Trial of} Offences uniler SC, ST^(POA) cum Vl A.M.S.J. at Secunderabadⁱⁿ Crl.App No. 9't312015, daled 01.02.2017 against the^{Judgment in C.C.No.29812012} passed by the learned V Spl. Magistrate at Hyderabad and may allow the Crl.RC filed bv both the respondents and may acquit^{them for the charge U/s. 138 of} N.l. Act, in th€ interest ofjustice.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. K SAI BABU

¶32

counsel for the Respondent No.1 : sRl T CHANDRA SHEKAR

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : PUBLIG PROSECUTOR

¶34

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶35

¶36

¶37

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶38

I.A.No.1 of 2022 In and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1214 of 2OL7 ORDER:

¶39

This revision is filed by the petitioners/appellants/ accused challenging the judgment dated O1.O2.2O17 passed in Criminal Appeal No.973 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.298 of 2Ol2 for the offence under Section - i38 ol the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

petitiorr, a^{joint memo which is signed by the parties} and their counsel,^{photographs of the parties ald} Photostat copies^{of their Aadhar Cards came to be} filed. It is^{stated inthe aflidavit that atthe} intervt:ntion of^{elders and well wishers, the parties} have settled.^{their disputesand as per the settlement} arrive,l at, the^{revision petitionersin total have paid} Rs.5O,OO,00Ol-^{by way of Demand Draft No'S13771'} dated 20.04^{.2022 towards ful1 and fina-1 settlement in} this case and^{also in six other casesdisposedoftoday'} are present before this^Court 3) Both the Parties today and^{they were identified by theirrespectl've} counsel. This^{Court, when examined, the first} respc,ndent/complainant^{submitted that out of his own} voliticn and^{without there being any coercion' he has} entered into^{compromiseand he. has no objectionin} case the^{petitionersare acquittedfor the charge under} Section 138^{of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct' 188 1'}

(t.

/_.

4|InDannodarS.Prabhuu.sdgedBabalal(H)lthe Apex Court^{has categoricaliyheld that"uhile} exercising^{pouer under Section147 of the Negotiable} Instruments^{Act, 1881, tLte Court can proceedwith the} compromise^{euenafter recording the conuiction'"}

¶47

In view^{of the a-foresaidprinciples laid down in the} above decision,^{and in the light of the compromise} arrived at^{betweenthe parties' I'A'No' L of 2022rs} ordered.

¶48

Accordingly,^{the Criminal RevisionCase is allowed} intermsofcompromise,settingasidethejudgments dated^{01.O2.2017 and13'11'2015 passed in} C.C.No.298^{of2Ol2 on the file of the Special} Magistrate-V,^{Hyderabadand in Crl'A'No'973 of 2015} on the^{file of the Special Judgefor Trial of Offences} und,er S.Cs^{and S'Ts (POA) Act-cum-VlAdditiona-l} Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge'} Secunderabad, respectively^{and the revision petitioners/accusedNos'I}

¶49

'^{(20Io)s scc 663}

¶50

¶51

ar:d 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1gg1. However, the revision petitioners are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,OO0/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad within a period of ten days lrom today and file proof of the same into the Registry.

¶52

Misr:ellaneous petitions, if any, pending, sha,ll

¶53

standc lcsed.

¶54

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Sper:ial Judge for Trail of Cases under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act-Cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Secunderabad.

¶60