Allowed

D.Bala Gangadhara Rao, Hyderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC1 Sept 2022CRLRC/1859/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision and pending applications under Sections 482 and 320 Cr.P.C. The court recorded an amicable compromise and settlement between the petitioner and the complainant. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted; order in terms of compromise allowed.

D.Bala Gangadhara Rao, Hyderabad., Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

I I

I I I i I I I I I I

i I 'fII l ,l J'

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶8

l.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 in Crl.R.C.No.'t859 of 2017

¶9

AND

¶10

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1859 OF 20'17

¶11

2^{Criminal RevisionCase Under Section397 & 401 of Crt.P.C against the} Judgment in Crl.A.No.72O of 2013 dated 06.06.2017 on the file of the Court of the Xlll. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Prefened aqainst the Order in C.C.No.267 of 2013 dated 30.'10.2013 on the file of :{ -..' the Court of the ll Special Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur.

¶12

Between:

¶13

D.Bala Gangadhara Rao, S/o. Venkata Rama Rao, Occ: Business, Managing Director of tVl/s Sri Venkata Sai Teja Packing (lndia) Ltd, R:/o Flat.No.205, Pravallika Towers, Nizampeta Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶14

... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶17

2 D.Suresh, S/o D.Damodaram, Occ: Business, R/o Flat.No. 310, Neeladri Block, Seven Hills apartment, Nizampeta Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP. NO: 2962OF 20 17\

¶20

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances state in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision^{Case, the High Court} may be pleased to suspend the operation of the sentence and enlarge^the petitioner/revision and suspend the payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,0001 imposed by the learned ll Special Magistrate Kukatpally at Miyapurⁱⁿ CC.No. 26712013 dated 30-10-20'13 as confirmed by the learned^{Xlll AdditionalDistrict}

t J

/ I I I I

i I Ii

t I I

i i Itt.. I I tt'it' I I I II i

¶28

and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB.Nagar in Crl.A.No. 72O oI 2013 dated 6-6-2017.

¶29

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶30

Petitron under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances state in the Memorar lum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to re ease the petitioner on bail by extending :he time granted by this Hon'ble High Cor rt in Crl.RCMP.No.2962 of 2017 in Crl.RC No.1B59 ot 2017 dated 04-07-2017 fc'payment of one fourth of fine amount to the credit of CC.No.267 of 2013 c n the file of the ll Special Judicial Magistrate, Kukatpally at N4iyapur

¶31

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶32

Between:

¶33

I 310, Neeladri D.Suresh, S/o B I t.Damodaram, ock, Seven Hills aged apartment, Nizampeta 49 years, Occ: l]usiness, Rc,aC, R/o Flat.NoKukatpally, Hyderabad-72

¶34

...PETITIONEF/At)t)l: L.LANT/ACCUSED

¶35

I^r: AND

¶36

The State of Te angana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High^(lourt of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶37

D.Bala Gangar hara Rao, S/o. Venkata Rama Rao, agleC 57 years, Occ: Business, Mani ging Director of Mis Sri Venkata Sai Teja Packing (lndia) Ltd, Fl/o Flat.No. 205, Pravallika Towers, Nizampeta Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶38

...RESPONDENI/PEl'l tlr)Nl:R/ACCUSED

¶39

Petition under iection 320 (6) of Cr.P.C praying ihat n tre circumstances stated in the affidav t filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to grant perr rission to file petition to compound the off,,rnces and to setl. ! .^-aSide conviction anc sentence imposed by the learned ll Special Magistrate I ;:. Kukatpally at lt/liyapu in C.C.No.267 of 20'13 dt. 30-10-:10'1 3 ers confirmed by the li. ldarned Xll Addl. Dis rict & Sessions Judge. Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in Crl.A.No.720 of 20 3 dt. 06-06-2017 and acquit the Accused/Petitioner.

¶40

l I I , I i

¶41

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶42

Petition under Section 320 (2) ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived at between the Petitioner/Accused and Respondent/Complainant to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned ll Special Magistrate Kukatpall Y at I,4iyapur tn C.C.No.267 of 2O13 dt. 30-10-2013 as confirmed by the learned Xll Addl Distrlct & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in Crl A No.720 of I^.: 2013 dt. 06-06-2017 and acquit the Accused/ Petitioner. i:"

¶43

This petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Mem randum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case and upon hearing the argu nts of Sri S. Ganesh, Advocate for the Petitioner in Crl.R.C and Respond nt^{No.2 in} l.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2022 and of the Assistant Public^prosecutor on^b half of the Respondent No.1 in Crl.R.C. & l.A.Nos.1 &212022 and of Sri.^{M. Yate} ndra Raju, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in Crl.R.C and Petitioner^{in l.A.Nos.} & 212022

¶44

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶45

'l'l{E IION'I}l,E Dr..ltlSTICE G. RADIIT\ IIANI l.A. Nr s.l and 2 of 2022 in Crl.R.C. No.l85!ol_Zllll

¶46

ANI)

¶47

CRI t{INAL ITBVISION CASE No.I85tt it'2,011

¶48

OIIDER:

¶49

Ihis Cri ninal Revision Case is filed by the pctitior.rer-appellantaccused aggrie ved by the judgment dated 06.06.201 7 1;assed in Crl.A. No.720 ol'20.3 by the XIII Additional Districl anc Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, confirming the judgrnent dated 30.10.2013 pa;sed in CC No.267 of 2013 on th,: fi[e r1'II Additional CIricf \4etropc Iitan Magistrate,, Hyderabad.

¶50

H:ard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellantaccused and tt e learned counsel for the respondent-cornplainant.

¶51

B :th the learned counsel submitted that the rnatter was settled amica rly between the parties and filed a joint memo of compromise a:rd filed I.A. Nos.l of 2022 and I.A. No.2 of 2022 to pemrit thern tr compound the offences and to re(ord tle compromise.

¶52

Dr.G R R,J {rl-RC.].'o.l 59 oJ )tt l7

¶53

The learned counsel fol the rcvision petitioner- pp(rllant submitted that since the revision petitioner is in hospital resently undergoing dialysis, the wife of the revision petitioner is pre nt. The wife of the revision petitioner and the respondent-complai nt are present before this court today and they are identified y their respective counsel. The Aadhar cards of the revision petiti ner and the respondent are filed befole the couft in proofoftheir identity.

¶54

The respondent-complainant stated that he a dto receive an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from the revision p itioneraccused towards futl and final settlement and that he had future claims whatsoever against him and that he had given up the compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and would not have y claim with regard to the same in future.

¶55

Leamed counsel for the revision petitio accused submitted that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited to tlre credit ofCC No.267 of2013 as per the older ofthis court dated 04. 07.20t7 while granting interim suspension suspending the sentertce and releasing the revision petitioner on bail, and handed over a original dernand draft bearing No.527411 dated 16.07.2022 of ICICI Bank,

¶56

I)r.GRR.-I (tl R ( . 'o.I8;9 of 2 17

¶57

¶58

¶59

Kukatpally Br: nci.r, I-Jyderabad ln lavour of the respondentcornplainant tbr an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupoes lj,re lakhs only) to the rcsponden -colrplainant in the open court

¶60

Cor sidering the compromise rnemo -lled t,y the rvife ol

¶61

the revision pt titioner-appellant and the respondent-complainant, signeci by thenr rnd by their respective counsel, it is con:iidered fit to allow the Crinri rai Revision Case No.l859 of 2(tl1 tr) setting aside the conviction a rd sentence imposed by the trial coul-t rrr CCI No.267 of 2013 dated 10.10.20 13 as confirmed by the appeltate coufi in Crl.A. No.720 cl'2013 dated 06.06.2017 and to acquit the petitioneraccused

¶62

Acr ordingly, I.A. Nos.l and 2 of 2022 are allowed and consequently,⁽ riminal Revision Case is allowed setr.ing aside the conviction and rentence irnposed by the trial couft in^(lll No.267 of 2013 dated 30.10.2013 as confirmed by the lower appellate court in Crl.A. No.720 c 120 l3 dated 06.06.2017 , and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the rffence.

¶63

Dr-GRR,J ('rl.RC..\ t ll59 of 2017

¶64

II I I I I i

¶65

¶66

1'he rcspondenlcorrplainant is permitted to rvi draw the arnount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty tho d onLy) dcposited to rhe credit of CC No.267 ol 2013 on rhe tlle ollI Special

¶67

Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miaypur. The bail bonds lurnis by the

¶68

petitioner-accused shall stand cancelled.

¶69

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand cl cd

I I

To,

SD/-K.SRI IVASA RAO JOINT EGISTRAR

¶75

//TRUE COPY//

¶76

¶77

SECTION OFFICER 1. The Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Di rict at L.B.Nagar. (with records)

¶78

The ll Special Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miayapur, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri S. Ganesh, Advocate [OPUC]

¶79

One CC to Sri M. Yateendra Raju, Advocate IOPUC]

¶80

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Tel ngana at Hyderabad. [OUTI 6. Two CD Copies

¶81

One Spare Copy

¶82

(Along with a Copy of Compromise Memo)

gbr

iq i

HIGH COURT

i^.

DATED:01/0f 12022

ORDER

a ,1t IlAlNos.1 and2 ct2022in Crt.R.C.No.l859 of 2017 4ltD CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1859 OF 2017

¶91

¶92

i i I I I I .l-I 't ,. } I I I l I I

¶93

ALLOWING THli l.A.Nos.1 AND 2 OF 2022 AND CRL.R.C IN ERMS OF C OMPROMISE

i ,lJY

IN'IHE IIIGH COURT FOR THI] STATT.] OF I'I.]I.AN(i AT:: IIYDERABAD

¶98

CRL.R.C.NO. 1859 0F 2017

¶99

I}E]'WF]F]N:

¶100

D.Bala Gangadhara Rao, S/o Venkata Rama Rao, aged 57 years, Occ: Business, Managing Director of lWs Sri Venkata Sai Teja Packing (India) Ltd, R/o F'lat.No. 205, Pravallika Towers,

¶101

Nizarnpeta Road, Kukatpally, I{yderabad.

¶102

PETITIONER/APPELLA CCUSITt)

¶103

AND

¶104

l. The State ofTelangana,

¶105

Rep. by Public Prosecutor, lligh Court ofJudicature at Hyderabad

¶106

D.Suresh, S/o D.Damodararn,

¶107

aged 49 years, Occ: Business,

¶108

R/o Flat.No. 310, Neeladri Block,

¶109

Seven Hills apartment, Nizampeta Rold,

¶110

Kukatpally, Hyderabad-7 2

¶111

RESPONDENTS,TTESPONDENT/C O tNANl'

¶112

COMP

¶113

0ll. It is respectfully submitted that the 2d respondent/compl nant flled C.C.No. 267 of 2013 on the file of II Special Magistrate. Ku ntpallv nl Miyapur for the offence under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instrurrent Act gainst the Petitioner/Accused. The learned Special Magistrate convicted t Accuscd and imposed sentence to undergo simple imprisonmcnt for six lhs and I(l pay Rs. 9.00 lakhs I Rs. 6.00 lakhs chcque amount plus lls.3 lakhs as

¶114

,A dLv*
hy

¶115

)

¶116

cornpcrsatioD] withi r orte month litiling^{!hich thc z!ccused shall rrrrdergo} simple itnprisonment br another six^{months by.iudgnrcnt datcd l0-10-2011.}

¶117

It is hurnbly submitted that aggrieved by thc^{said convictlonand} sentencc, the Pctitior crl^ccused Iilcd^Crl.A.NO.120 ot'2013^{before thc XII} Additional District & Scssions^{Judge. IlangaReddyDistrictat L.B.Nagtrrand} the learned District Jr dge dismissed the^{apPeal andconlinned the.iudgmcnt of} the trial court by his^j rdgment dt. 06-06-2017.

¶118

03] It is respectlu ly submitted ihat aggrieved by the^{said judgrncnt,the} Petitioner/Accused fi ed the above Crirninal Revision Case and this^l-lon'ble Court granted intcrir r suspension strspending the sentcnce and released thc Petitioner on bail sub cct to deposit lts. 1,50,000/- by its order dt. 04-o7^-2017 and the revision is pe rding. In compliancc ol the ordcr of this Hon'ble Court the Petitioner/Accuse I dcposited lhc an]ount oi I{s. t,50,0001 to the credit of C.C.No.267 of 2013.

¶119

04]. It is respectfull r submitted that durirlg the pendency ofrevision, the well wishers and elders ol the partiss advised the I'etitioner/Accus,:d and Respondenl-/Complair ant to settle thc disputes arnicably in order to buy peace and harmony keepin;1 their health conditions as both ol'them are strf1'ering serious ill health issut s. Accordingly, the rcspondent/complainant has agrecd kt compromise the matt^:r and settle all the disputes with the Petirioner/Accused and the complainant I as to objection to allow the above rcvision and acquir thc Petitioner/accused. Accordingly, the complainant and accused enteled into terms of the comprom se in following terms:-

¶120

i]. The Rer pondent/Complainant has agreed to receive ths rrnount of Rs.6,00,00C'- [Rupees Six lakhs only] being the cheque unount towards full an I final settlement and he shall no have clairn, whalsocver, (t bd,^b ,-<l f_D

¶121

4i. C/ o?2o^-t' u"o-. 6* ',% 2o2 c- ,'e

¶122

¶123

against the Petitioncr/Accused. He has agreed and no objec n to all0w thc Crl.tt.C.No. 1859 ol 2017 and to set aside rhe con ction and sentencc irnposed bv the trial court in C.C.No. 261 ol 201) dr. .10- l02013 as confirmed by the appellate court in Crl.A.No. 720 I 2013 dr. 06-06-201'l and acquit the Petitioner/Accused.

¶124

ii. 'lhe respondcnt/cornplaimut has giving up the ensalron amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs only] and he shall not clainr the same in iuture. Any amolrnt

¶125

iii. 'l'he l'etitioner/Accused has no objection for withdra g the amount ol' Rs. 1,50,000/- [Rupees One Lakh fifty th onlyl deposited to the credit ol C.C.NO. 267 of 2013 the respondenL/complainant.

¶126

ivl.^'fhe Petitioner/Accused has agreed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/Five Lakhs onlyl to the RespondenVComplainant towards lull a final settlement by way of Dernand Draft bearing D.D.No. 52741 I dt 6-072022 lclcl Bank Kukatpally Branch Hyderabad in favour f rhe respondent/complainant. In al[, the complainant will get Rs. 6,5 000/[Rupees^{Six Lakhs fifty thousand only], includingthe} depositedas per the orders of the Hon'ble High IN Crl.RC.M.P.No. 2962 of 2013 in CrI.R.C.NO. 1859 of 2017 full and final settlement.

¶127

v]. The Petitioner/Accused and the Respondent/Complainimt ra ll not have any claim, whatsoever against each other in respect of dis Les arising out ofthe cheque. hI r0( i -{<sup>U'Jo-xo"1^dh;"

¶128

¶129

¶130

06i. This scttlcmenl is arrivcd at belwecn the partics at the inlcrvcrllio^{r I,1'the} rvell wishers and elde s and Petitioner and l{espondent scttled tlrc disptites an(l compromised all the lisputes and issues. In vicu'ofthc contplomise^-citcherl between Complainan and the Accused, the complainant docs nol^,vant to prosecute Petitioner, .ccused. In vierv of thc cornpronrise and sctlleu-ent. n() purpose rvould be sen ed if thc proceedings are continued.

¶131

07]. It is therefore lrayed that this Hon'ble Court rnal be pl:ased t(, record the terms and con,litions of the compromisc arrived at between the Petitioner/Accused ar d RcspondenL/Complainant set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by he leamed II Special Magistrate Kukatp:rlly at Ir4i,vapur in C.C.No. 267 of 20 3 dt. 30-10-2013 as confinncd by the lcarnerl Xll Addi. District & Sessions J rdge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagzlr in Crl.r.Nt. 720 of 2013 dt. 06-0( -2017 and acquit the Petitiolor/ Accu:,cd anrl Pass suelr other order or orde6 r s deem fit and propcr.

¶132

Petitioncr ,

¶133

C-A-"1-
ry-
T(D Bala G .ao, with thub)
r
Mfa+un-r
tioner

¶134

llespondent No.2
4'
rln
dr\t>
( D.Surcslr rri'tlr' rlrub.l
(D.Raii Surcsh Wo Suresh)
[.t:
Counsel the Rcspond end No.2

¶135

HYDERABI,D DArE:2t-0wo2z

D.Bala Gangadhara Rao, Hyderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Bala Gangadhara Rao, Hyderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunal Malhotra Vs Smt.Pooja Mukhija and 2 Others

Gurnule Namdev, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Varaganti Raghavender Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

M/S Rajesh Poultry Farms Ensanpally (v) R.M. Medak., Vs Smt.Putnala Lingavva, Medak Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Nampally Kattaiah and 2 Others Vs State of Telangana

Posa Rama Krishna, Uppal, Hyd., Vs Smt.Chitrada Malleshwari, Habsiguda, and Anr., Rep Pp.