Allowed

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

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022CRLRC/1216/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Hyderabad allowed criminal revision and an interim petition to compound offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, following a monetary settlement of Rs. 50 lakhs and a separate deposit of Rs. 5,000 towards costs.

What did the court decide?

Revocation of conviction and sentence; acquittal of accused; deposit of Rs. 5,000 towards costs within 10 days; closure of miscellaneous petitions.

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

¶1

k\ //

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶6

l.A.No.1 OF 2022 in/AND

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION cASE NO: 1216 OF 2017

¶8

l.A.No.1 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Dr.K.Lahiri, S/o. Kalidas Lahiri, aged about 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o plot No 179, Dhanalakshmi Cooperative Society, Irrlahendra Hills, East IVaredpally, Secunderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 LShg5hagiri Egg, 9/o late l.Subba Rao, aged about 62 years, Occ: Business, R:/o Plot No. 53A, Road No.1'1 , Film Nagar, Jubilee Hiils,'Hyderabad.

¶14

2 M/s-So.vereign Distilleries Ltd., rep.by.Sri l.seshagiri Rao, Office at H.No. 7-119/3, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hydeiabad.

¶15

...RespondenUPetitioners 1 &2/Accusedl &2

¶16

3 T.he State of Telangana, Rep.by. through^public prosecutor , High Court Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Sectionl4T of N.l.ACT R/W Section 320(2)ot Cr pC 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 entered into by both the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and to consequenfly compound the offence uls. 147 of N.l. Act & U/s.320 (2) of cr.p.c. alleged to be committed U/s. 138 of N.l Act by the respondents I & 2, and may set aside the conviction and sentences confirmed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of oflences under SC, ST (POA) cum Vl A.M.S.J. at Secunderabad in Crl.App No. 970/2015, dated 01.02.2017 against the Judgment in C.C.No. 297t2012 passed by the learned V spl. Magistrate at Hyderabad and may allow the crl.RC filed by both the respondents and may acquit them for the charge U/s. l3B of N.l. Act, in the interest of^justice .

¶20

¶21

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1216 OF 2017

¶23

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 01-02-2017^passed in Crl.A.No.970 of^20'1 5 on the file of the Court of the Spl.Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs & S.Ts^(POA) Act-CumVl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge: Secunderabad confirming the Judgment dated 13-11-2015^passed in C.C.No. 297 ot 2012 on the^file the Court of the V Special Magistrate Court,-V, Hyderabad^.

¶24

Between:

¶25

l.Sheshagiri Rao, S/o late l.Subba Rao, aged about 62^years, Occ; Business, FVo Plot No. 53A, Road No.'1 1, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶26

...PETITIONERYAPPELLANTS/ACCUSED

¶27

AND

¶28

Dt.K.Lahiri, S/o. Kalidas Lahiri, aged about 67^years, Occ: Business, Rl/o Plot No. 179, Dhanalakshmi Coeiierative Society, Mahendra Hills, East [,4aredpally, Secunderabad.

¶29

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

¶30

...RESPONDENTSi RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶31

CRLRCMP. NO: 1964 OF 2017

¶32

Petition under Section 482 Cr PC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the^judgment in Crl.A.No. 97O of 2015 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, and^pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and^proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. K.SAI BABU

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.1:SRl. T. CHANDRA SHEKAR

¶35

Counsel for lhe Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶38

I.A.No.1 oI2022 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1216 of 2OL7

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

This revision is filed by the petitioner/appellant/ accused challenging the judgment dated Ol.O2.2Ol7 passed in Criminal Appeal No.970 of 2015 by the learned Special Judge for tria-l of Cases under the Scheduied Castes/the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act cum VI Additional Metroplitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad confirming the conviction zrnd sentence imposed by the learned Special Magistrate-V, Hyderabad, vide judgment dated 13.11.2015 in C.C. No.297 of 2OI2 for the offence under Section - 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 .

¶41

2\ During pendency of the Criminal Revision, I.A.No.1 of 2022 carhe to be filed by the first respondent to record the compromise. Along with the

¶42

petition, a joint memo which is signed by the parties and their counsel, photogr2phs 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 petitioner in total have paid Rs.5O,00,O0Ol- by way of Demand Draft No.513771, dated- 2O.O4.2O22 towards full and hnal settlement in this case and also in six other cases disposed of today. 3) Both the parties are present before 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 charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1gg1.

4l ln Damodar S.Prabhu u. Saged Babalal (41 tne Apex Court has categor.ically held that "while exercising power under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, tLte Court can proceed with the compromise euen after recording the conuiction."

¶49

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

¶50

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is a1lowed in terms of compromise, setting aside the judgments dated 01.O2.2OL7 and 13.11.2015 passed 1n C.C.No.297 of 2OL2 on the file of the Special Magistrate-V, Hyderabad and in Crl.A.No.97O of 2Ol5 on the file of the Special Judge for Tria-l of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additiona,l Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, respectively and the revision petitioner/accused 1S

¶51

' 1zo^{roy s scc oo:}

¶52

¶53

acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs before the Secretar5r, High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad within a period of ten days from today and file proof of the same into the Registry.

¶54

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shalt

¶55

stand close:d.

¶56

s D/-c.v. MI;iKARJ u NA vARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPYII

¶57

¶58

SECTION OFFICER

¶59

SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Spl.Judoe for Triat of Offences under S.Cs & S.Ts (pOA) Act_Cum-Vl Ad d il ion a I I\4e t ro po I i ta n S e s s i o n i .r u O g6: S". r"" j" I" O j j 2 3 +[:r[3s?j El,Yi'i?Xsj:,.""".t1;f lj;,."f :i,i .;.;;," ",,nana,^{at Hyderabad} 4 9n" 99^{to SRI K. SAt BABU,} Advocate tOpUCl 6.7.5 Two The Secretary, Tetanoana Hiqh One CD CopiesCC to SRt T. CHANDRA SHEXnnl corrl Lbg;l'5","i.[!'c""X]rilee h-Ovo-#e tOpUCt . Hyderabad. 8. One Spare Copy

¶60

(along with a copy of Joint memo of Compromise)

¶61

COSTMEMO:

¶62

Note: Amount paid by K Sai Bab.u , towards imposed by Cost of Rs. 5,000/_(Five Thousand onry) to Terangana^Hig! Receipt No.569137 Date:28rc4n022 -c-ourt^r-egar '^{serviiescorrittu",ivol,r"o".o.} r

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810412022

ORDER

LA.No.1 OF 2022 in/AND CRL.RC.No.1216^{of 2017}

¶67

?. HE. S TA )4:
?" J 77 JUl\l 2[22
* /lI:

¶68

ALLOWING THE^CRL.R.C.

t9\ob /o!'

.^.i I I

IN THE HIGH^{COURT OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD I.A.No l^{OF 2022} IN Crl.R'C^{No 1216OF2017}

¶73

Betueen^:

¶74

Dr. K. Lahiri'^{S/oKalidas Lahiri'} Ap.ed^{about 67} Years,^{Occ: Busrness'} R^i-o. Plot^{No.I ?9, Dhanalaksnmi Co-operative Society'} il]rr."im^{Hirit' iast Marredpally'Sectrnderabad} retitioner^{/ RespondentNo l/} De-facto^comPlainant

¶75

-1

¶76

AND

¶77

Sheshagiri^{Rao, Sio' I Subba Rao'} 1 i'liii'i,' *' t'":',i::X,::^{i li1'1"?i'"} "" Jubilee^{Hills.HYderabad'}

¶78

IWs.^{SovereignDistillers Ltd'} p.n hv Sri. S. Seshagrrr xao'^{Officeat H No' 7-1-19l3'} iirl,a"i,u"grt,^{Begumpet'Hyderabad} ...^{Respondents/ petitionersI & 2/} AccusedNo^{i &2}

¶79

1
i;i
il I I

¶80

. ResPondent^{/ ComPlainant}

¶81

;-Bh'LTffi'ryr,*

¶82

¶83

.IOINT^{MEMOFILEDBYBOTHTHEP}

¶84

1 It is^{submittedthat thepetitionerfiled seven cases under Section138} complaints^{againstResponclentsNo 1 & 2 before learnedXth Addl'} C.M.Magistrate,^{at Secunderabad'' wherein the Court recorded his Sworn} Statements^{and took cognizance againstthe respondentNo' I & 2 and} issued^{summons to them Thereafterallsevencases transferredto learned} V Spl.^{Magistrate,Hyderabadfor trial all the caseswere new numbered} CC No'^{299 of 2012' c) CC No235of 2012'} a) C.C.No.^{232 of} .2012'b) d) CC^{No. 298of2012'e)CC No 300 of2012'ICC No297 of2012'} g) CC^{No. 234 of 2012'In all thecases respondent No l and 2 received} summons^{and contestedthe cascs}

¶85

¶86

2 It is submitted that to support ofthe case, the petitioner filed his evidence a{fidavit in a1l the seven cases and documents and they were received by the court and marked as Exhibits. Then the court examined Respondents 1 &2llls.313 Cr.P.C- Thereafter the respondentNo. I given his evidence and filed documents and they rvere received and markcd. The Court heard the arguments on both the sides and passed judgments in all seven cases on 13.11-2015 separately convicting the Respondents No. I and 2 for the charge U/s. 138 of N.l.Act, sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment 1br 6 months and pay fine of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand only) to both the accused total Rs.60,000/- (Sixty Thousand only) in default both shall undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. The accused No. I being Director of Company shall undergo punishment passed against Company Accused No.2 both sentences shall run conculrently fine amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to petitioner after appeal time or after disposal of the Appeal.

¶87

It is submitted that in C.C.No. 29912012 the same Judgment is passed by the learned Spl. Magistrate is rhat of CC No.232'of 2012.ln CC No. 235 of20l2 the leamed Spl.Magisn'ate ordered sentence to respondents 1 & 2, for six months and fine ofRs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand- only) in default of fine they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and out of fine amount Rs. 19,000i- to be paid to Petitioner / Complainant. In CC No. 298 of 2012 also thc same.judgment is passed by the leamed Spl.Magistrate that of CC No. 232 of 20t2 and in CC No. 297 of 2012 the sanrejudgment is passed in CC No. 232 of7Ol2.

¶88

It is submitted that against the conviction and sentence in all seven cases the respondents 1 and 2 filed Crirninal Appeals before the leamed M.S.J. Court at Hyderabad and the sanle was transferred to leamed Spt.Judge for Trial of offences under S.C. & S.Ts (POA) Acr cum VI Addl.

¶89

¶90

{

¶91

I
)
|,1i, II
IJ'l I
I
I
I I

¶92

M.S.J.Court at Secunderabad vide Crl.App.No. 974 of 2Ol5 against CC No. 232/2012 in Crl.App.No.9 7 t/2015 against CC No. 299i2012 and App.No. 968/2012 against CC No. 23512012, Crl.App.973/2015 againsr CC No. 298l2OlZ, Crl.App.No. 969/2015 againsr CC No.300/2012, Crl.App.No. 970/2012 againsr CC No.297/2012 and Crl.App.No. 972/2015 against CC No. 234/2012 were numbered and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hear the arguments from both the sides and pass separate judgments on 01.02.2017 by confinning the judgments of learned V Spl. Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶93

It is further submitted that against the same, respondents 1 and 2 filed the above

¶94

a. Crl.R.C.No.l2l1 of 2017 against Crl.App.No.974/2015 in CC No. 232/2012

¶95

b. Crl.R.C.No.l2 12 of 2Ot7 against Crl.App.N o.971t2015 in CC No. 299/2012

¶96

c. Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2017 against Crl.App.No.988/2015 in CC No. 235/2012

¶97

:.
l
i
-,f, 1 j
I
1l;l
i i
I

¶98

d. Crl.R.C.No.1214 of 2017 against Crl.App.No.97312015 in CC No. 298/2012

¶99

e: Crl.R.C.No.1215 of 2017 against Crl.App.N o.969/2015 in CC No. . 300/20t2

¶100

L Crl.R.C.No.l2l6 of 2017 against Crl.App.No.970/20t5 in CC No.

¶101

v,e29tr/2012

¶102

in CC No.

¶103

[.^{Crl,R.C.No. l217ol 2017agrinsrCrl.App.No.972/2015} 234/2012

¶104

Were filed before this Hon'ble Court.

¶105

It is further submitted subnrit. that pending Crl.R.C. before this Hon,ble Cou , the respondents I & 2 came forward and entered into oral understanding with the petitioner for amicable settlement ofall the above seven cases at the intervention of elders of both the sides and well utishers. In view ol comprornise the respondents 1 and 2 giving D.D. of ICICI Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad vide D.D.No. 513771, dated, 20 .04.2022 to the petirioner for Rs.50,00,000/- towards full and final settlenrent for.all seven cases, the same is accepted by the petitioner.

¶106

I
i
"i: l'
tl I
I
i t,,I
l

a (

<br><br>'i

It is therefore prayed that this Llon'ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise entered into by both the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and to consequently compound the offence lJls. 147 of N.l. Act & Uls.320 (2) of Cr.P.C. alleged to be committed U/s. 138 of N.I. Act by the respondents 7 &2, and may set aside the conviction and sentences confirmed by the leamed Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC, ST (POA) cum VI A.M.S.J. at Secunderabad in Crl.App No.970i2015, dated 01.02.2017 against the Judgment in C.C.No. 22412012 passed by the learned V Spl. Magisrrare at !:Y Flyderabad and may allow the Crl.RC filed by both rhe respondents and consequently may acquit them for thc char.ge U/s. 138 ofN.l. Acr, and pass such other order or orders as may decm fit and proper in tire circumstances of the case, in the interest ofjustice.

¶111

-L-r-^ Petitioner / Respondent No. 1/ De-facto complainant

¶112

L. c-J Respondent N{, L- a,/7 Respondent k. 2

¶113

C ounse I for Petitioner / Respondent No. 1/ De-facto complainant

¶114

lr;"r*t7 Counbel for Respondents I & 2

¶115

i I I I

¶116

Place:Hvderabad oor"71-oq-zozz

¶117

t i

¶118

¶119

I
I
i* f

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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