Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022CRLRC/1217/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Revision filed by cheque dishonour accused, recording a post-conviction compromise between parties. Upon payment of Rs.50 lakhs by respondents to the petitioner, the Court set aside lower court judgments confirming conviction and acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 138 NI Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision allowed; judgments confirming conviction set aside; accused acquitted of Section 138 NI Act offences; postpond any appeals against order.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

l.A.No. 1 ot 2022

¶6

in/and

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1217 aF 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 Coeiierative Society, Mahendra Hills, East Maredpally, Secunderabad. ...Petitioner/RespondentNo.liDefacto Complainant

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

I\ills Sovereign Distilleries Ltd., rep.by.Sri l.Seshagiri Rao, Office at H.No.7-'1-

¶14

1 9/3, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad

¶15

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

¶16

... RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶17

Petition under Section 147 of N.I.ACT R/W SECTION 320(2) of 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 consequently compound the offence Uls. 147 of N.l. Act & U/s.320⁽²⁾ of Cr.p.C. alleged^{to be} comniited U/s. l3g 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} Offences under SC, ST (POA) cum Vl A.l,4.S.J. at Secunderabad in Crl.App^No. 97212015, dated 01 .O2.2017 against the Judgment in C.C.No. 23412012^passed by the learned V Spl. lr,4agistrate at Hyderabad and may allow^{the Crl.RCfiledby} both the respondents and may acquit them for the charge Uis.^{l3B of N.l. Act, in} the interest of^justice .

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1217 OF 2017

¶19

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 01-02-2017 passed in Crl.A.No. 972 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-Cum-Vl Additional lVetropolitan Sessions Judge: Secunderabad confirming the Judgment dated 13-11-2015 passed in C.C.No. 234 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the V Special [\zlagistrate Court, Erramanzil, Hyderabad .

¶20

Betwee n:

¶21

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

¶22

M/s Sovereign Distilleries Ltd., rep.by.Sri l.Seshagiri Rao, Office at H.No. 7-119/3, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶23

(As described bv tTpEi?fl8KEfl3lorB=.lX*r,?"itti3lb *?T?, AND

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

..,RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTSiCOMPLAINANT

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. K SAI BABU

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: T CHANDRA SHEKAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

¶32

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶33

I.A.No.1 of 2022 Inland CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.12 L7 of 2OL7

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This revision is filed by the petitioners/appellants/ accused challenging the^judgment dated Ol.O2.2Ol7 passed lll Criminal Appeal No.972 of 2015 by the Iearned Special Judge for trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes/the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act cum Vi Additional Metroplitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Magistrate-V, Hyderabad, vide^judgment dated i3.11.2015 in C.C. No.234 of 2Ol2 for the offence under Section - 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, i881.

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

petition, a joint memo which is signed by 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 u,e1l wishers, the parties have settled their disputes and as per the settiement arrived at, the revision petitioners in total harre paid Rs.50,00,00O1- by way of Demand Draft No.513771, dated 20.04.2022 towards full and linal settlement in this case and also in six other cases disposed of today

¶39

Both the parties are present before this Court today and they rvere 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 petitioners are acquitted for the charge under Section i38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 188 1.

-l

4l In Dq.modqr S.Prabhu a. Saged Babalal (H)1 tine Apex Court has categoricaliy held that^,,uthile exercising power under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1887, the Court can proceed" with the compromise euen after recording the conuiction.,'

¶44

In view of the a_foresaid 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 orde re d.

¶45

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in terms of compromise, setting aside the judgments dated O1.O2.2O17 and 13.11.201S passed 1n C.C.No.234 of 2012 on the file of the Special Magistrate-V, Hyderabad and in Crl.A.No.972 of 2OlS on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions .ludge, Secunderabad, respectively and the revision petitioners/accused Nos. 1

¶46

' 1zo^toys scc^co:

¶47

¶48

ar,d 2 are acquitted for the offence punishabie under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, the revision petitioners are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,0OO/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs before the Secretary, High Court Legai Services Committee, Hyclerabad within a period of ten days from today and file proof of the same into the Registry.

¶49

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

¶50

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Special Judge^{for Trial of Offencesunder S.Cs& S'Ts (POA)} Act-ium-Vl Add-itional^{Metropolitan Sessions Judge:} Secunderabad.

¶55

The V Speclal lVagistrate^{Court, Erramanzil, Hyderabgd} 5. f*o CCs to Publii^{Prosecutor, High Court for the Stateof} Telanqana, at Hvderabad [OUT]

¶56

one cd to snt. K SAI^{BABU Advocate} [OPUC]

¶57

S. One CC to SRl.^{T CHANDRA SHEKARAdvocate IOPUC]}

¶58

ih; Secretary.^{HighCourt LcgalServicesCommittee, Hyderabad'}

¶59

Two CD Copies

¶60

B. One Spare^CoPY

¶61

(along with a copy of Joint Memo^{of Cornprotnise)}

¶62

Cost Memo:

¶63

Note: Amount^{paid by Petitioner/AccusedNo.1 & 2 towards Rs.5,000/-(Five Thousand} Only) in favoui^{the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad.}

¶64

Rwceipt No. 569135^{dared: 28-04-2022}

CDL MMA

#-.'

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810412022

ORDER

I.A.NO.1 0F 2022 in/AND CRLRC.N 0.1217 of 20'17

¶72

oo 2 0 JUr 202
(
l'
*
I-,':r a li

¶73

ALLOWING THE CRL.R.C.

<br>t

IN THtr I-IIGH COURT^{OF TELANGANA} AT IIYDI]RABAD I.r.No. OI:2022

¶78

¶79

Crl.ll..C.No.^{1217Ot' 2017}

¶80

Bet\'ee n

¶81

Dr. K. I-ahiri, S/o.^{Kalidas Lahiri,}

¶82

Aqed about 67^{years.Occ:Business.} nir Plot No. 179. Dhanalakshmi^{Co-opcrative Society'} Mahendra LIills,^{East Marredpally,Secunderabad'}

¶83

Petitioner / ResPondent^{No l/} De-facto comPlainant

¶84

ANDl. Sheshagiri Rao, S/o. I. Subba Rao, Aged about⁶² Years,^{Occ:Business,} rUo. Plot No. 53A,^{RoadNo. I l, FilmNagar,} J ubilee^I Iills'^HYderabad.

¶85

. 2. M/s. Sovereign^{DidtillelsLtd.,} Rep. by^{Sri. 5' SeshagiriRao, Ofllce at H No' 7-l-19i3'} Kundanbagh'^{Begulnpet' Hyderabad}

¶86

.. . Respondents^{i Petitioners 1 & 2/} - Accused^{No l & 2}

¶87

i. Tlrc state ofrelanganr^{&!0" flcltr o ll''8&4c^} thig- f,i-cb.J' ff(^{t t*'l :Respondent/ complainant}

¶88

.IOINI'lI[]lO^{FI I,[D I}Y lto lllTH Iil PAIi'IIES}

¶89

It is sublritted^{that the pctitioner filed seven cases underSection 138} complaints^{against Ilespondents No' I & 2 before learned Xth Addl'} C.M.Magistrate.^{at Secunclerabacl} '^{wherein the Coutlrecorded his Sworn} Statements^{and tookcognizance againstthe respondentNo l & 2 and} issued summons^{to them. Therealier ailsevencasestransferredto learned} V Spl. Magistrate,^{I-{yderabacllor trial all the cases werenewnumbered} a) C.C.No.^{232 of2O12,b) CC No 299 of 2Ol2' c) CC No 235 of20l2'} d) cc No.^{298 of)olz,e)CC No.300 of2012,0cc No' 297 of2012'} g) CC No.^{234 of 2Ol2- ln all the casesrespondent No1 and 2 received} summons^{and contestedthe cases'}

¶90

az\ V)

¶91

It is submitted that to suppofl ofthe case, the petitioner lilecl his evidcncc aifidavit in all the seven cases and documents and they werc rcceived by the court and marked as Exhibits. Then the court examined Respondents I & 2 U/s.313 Cr.P.C.^'l'herealicr the respondent No. I given his evidence and filed docunrents and they were received and marked. l-he Courr hctrd thc 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.I.Act, sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and pay fine of Rs.30,000i- (Thirry Thousand only) to both the accused total Rs.60,000i_ (Sixty Thousand only) in default both shall undergo fur.ther Sirnple 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 concurently fine amount of Rs.50,000/_ shall be paid to petitioner after appeal time or aftcr disposal of rhe Appeal.

¶92

It is subnritted that in C.C.No. 299/2012 rhe same Judgment is passed hy the learned Spl. Magisrrare is that of CC No. 232 of 2012. tn CC No. 235 of20i2 the learned Spl.Magistrate ordered senl.ence to respondcuts I & 2, lbr six nronths and llne ofl{s.20.0001 (Rupees Twenty Thousand onlr,) in default of fine they shall r-urdergo Simple Imprisonment lbr 3 months and out of hne amount Its.19.000/- to bc paid to petitioner / Conrplainant. In CC No, 298 of 2012 also the same judgment is passed by rhe learned Spl.Magistrate that of CC No. 232 of 20t2 and in CC No.297 ol20 t 2 Lhe sanre.judgrnent is passed in CC No. 232 of 2012.

¶93

It is subnlitted that against the conviction and sentence in alr seven cases the respondents I and 2 filed Crintinal Appeals before the learncd M.S.J. Court at Hyderabad and the same was transfeffed to learned Spl..ludge l.or Trial of offences under S.C. & S.Ts (pOA) Act cum VI Addl.

¶94

¶95

¶96

M.S.J.Courr at Secunderabad^vide Crl.App.No.^{874 of 2015against CC} No. 23212012 in Crl.App.No.97ll2015^{againstCC No. 29912012and} App.No. 96812012 against CC No.^{23512012,Crl.App.973l2015against} CC No. 29812012, Crl.App.No.^{96912015againstCC No.300/2012,} Crl.App.No. 97012012 against CC No.29712012^{and Crl.App.No.} 972OOl5 against CC No. 2i4l2012^{rvere numberedandthe learned} Sessions Jutlge rvas^pleased to^{hear theargumentsliomboth thcsides atld} pass separate .iudgments on 01.02.2017 by^{confirmingthe judgmentsol} learned V Spl. Magistlate at Hyderabad.

¶97

It is further submitted^{that against the same, respondents I and 2 filedthe} cbove

¶98

a. Crl.R.C.No.l21l of^{2017 againstCrl.App.No.974/2015 in CC No.} 232/2012

¶99

b. Crl.R.C.No.1212 of^{2017 againstCrl.App.No.97ll2015 in CC No'} 29912012

¶100

c. Crl.R.C.No.l2l3 of^{2017 againstCrl.App.No.988/2015 in CC No.} 235120t2

¶101

d. Crl.R.C.No.l214 of^{2017 againstCrl.App.N 0.97312015in CC No} . 29812,012

¶102

e. Crl.R.C.No.1215 of^{2017 againstCrl.App.No.969l20l5in CCNo'} 3ool2ot2

¶103

fl Crl.R.C.No.l216 ot^{2017 againstCrl.App.No 97012015in CC No.} 29212012

¶104

g. Crl.R.C.No.1217 of 2017^{againstCrl AppNo.972l20l5in CC No'} 234/2012

¶105

Were filed before^{thisHon'ble Court}

¶106

6, It is further^{submitted subnrit that pending Crl.R C before this Hon'ble} Court, the respontlcnts^{1 & 2 camelbrward and entercdinto oral} understanding^{\'iththe petitioner fbranricable settlementof all the above} seven cases at the^{illterventionof elders of both the sides and rryell} wishers. In view of^{compromise the respondents1 and2 givingD'D' of} ICICI Bank, .lubilee^{IlillsBIarrch,I-lyclerabadvide D DNo'513771'} dated 20.04.2022^{to the petitioner forRs 50,00,000/-towards fulland}

¶107

final settlement for all seven^{cases,the same is accepted bythe petitioner'}

¶108

¶109

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble^{Court may be pleased to rccordthe} compromise entered into by both^{the parties ie. the petitioner and respondent} No. 2 and to consequently^{compout.tdthe offence Uls. 147 of N.l. Act &} Uls.3zO⁽²⁾ of Cr.P.C.^{alleged to be committedU/s. 138 of N.I. Act by the} respondents 1 &2, andmay^{set aside the convictionand sentencesconfirmedby} the learned Special^{Judgefor Trial ol'Offencesunder SC, ST (POA)cumVl} A.M-S.J. at Secunderabad in Crl.App^{No. 97212015,dated 01 02.2017 against} the Judgment in C.C.No.^{23412012 passedby the learnedV Spl. Magistrateat} Hyderabad and mav allow the^{Crl.llC filed by boththe respondents and} consequently may^{acquit them tbr the cirargeU/s.138 ofN I. Act, and passsuch} other order or orders^{as maydeetnfit and properin the circtrmstatrcesoi thc} oase. in the^{intel cstof.iustice}

¶110

-U"b Petitioner / Responclent No.^l/ De-lacto conrplainant

¶111

<-la9\L^"' ( A
-=='--0
Respondent No, I
h)
Ilespo nd! Y nt No. 2

¶112

{ Counsel for Petitioner / Respondent No. l/ De-facto conrplainant

¶113

LE)v4, Counsel'for Respondents^{1 & 2}

¶114

Place:Hyderabad Date:2*04-2022

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.Sheshagiri Rao, Hyd and Anr., 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, 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.

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