Allowed

Gopal Madhukar v. K.Shiva Kumar and Another

Telangana HC8 Mar 2022CRLRC/9/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision Case No.09 of 2022, the Telangana High Court, relying on Danodarar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., allowed compounding of a Section 138 NI Act offence. The Court quashed the conviction and sentence after the parties settled via a joint compromise memo and payment of costs to the State, discharging the accused.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted subject to payment of Rs.25,000 costs to Sainik Welfare.

Gopal Madhukar Vs K.Shiva Kumar and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY. THE EIGHTH^{DAYOF IVARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL R^{EVI SION CASEN O: 09 OF2022}

¶6

ALON G WITH IA NOS 2 AND 3 0F 2022

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under^{Section397 & 401 of Crl'P'Cagainslthe} JudgmentinCrl.AppealNo.ll5of20l6daledogllztzozlonthefileofthecourtofthe Special Judge for^{Trial of cases under SCs / STs (POA) Act-cum- Vlll Additional} Sessions Judge,^{Nizamabad preferred againstthe Order in CC No'527 of 2013 dated} 2011012016 on the file of the^{court of the I Additional Judicial First class lvlagistrate,} Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gooal Madhukar, S/o.Bhumaiah.^{aged41 years, Occ. Business. R/o'H'No'7-7-58/1'} opi to sinooor,^{Matcninsce'rter'(umarsb'rv.Nrzamabad} i]f;ii1#^?i'il'ibcuseo

¶10

ANO

¶11

K.Shiva Kumar, S/o.Lingoji,^{aged 37 years, Occ; Photo Studio Business'} R/o.Padmalaya Studio^{Nizamabad, Nizamabad District'} . . ...COMPLAINANT/ RESPONOENT

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{rep by the Public Prosecutor,HighCourt of Telangana} ....ResPondent

¶13

lA NO: 1 oF 2022

¶14

Petition under Section^{482 of Cr.PC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of^{groundsof Criminal Revision Case,the High Court maybe} pleased to suspend the Judgment of^{the Special Judge for the Trial of Cases under} SCs/STs^(POA) Act-cum-^{Vlll Additional SessionsJudge, at Nizamabadin} Crl.Appeal No.115 of^{2016 dated Ogt12l2O21preferred againstthe sentenceand} judgment dated 20l1o12016^passed by I^{Additional Judiciallvlagistrateof First class,} Nizamabad in CC No.527l2013^{andenlarge lhe petilioneron bail}

¶15

IA oF 202

¶16

Between:

¶17

K.Shiva Kumar, S/o.Lingoji,^{aged37 years. Occ: PhotoStudioBusiness,} R/o.Padmalaya Studio,^{Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.}

¶18

...pET|T|ONER/ ACCUSED

¶19

AND

¶20

Gopal Madhukar, S/o.Bhumaiah,^{aged41 years, Occ:Eusiness,R/o H No'7-7-} 58/1, Opp: to Sindoor^{Matching Center, Kumargally, Nizamabad,Nizamabad} District.

¶21

The Stale of Telangana,^{rep. by the Public Prosecutor,HighCourt of Telangana} ....ResPondent/ ComPlainant

¶22

Petitlon unde'^{Sectron 320(6) of Cr'P'Cprayng that for the reasons statedrn} tn" ii^{igjn do"t nr"y be pleased to gra'rt} the comoromise^{petition, and l#l''i''"} H;iJ.i';i;;;i",0^tn" ".o,0-ii,u-'11#:::l'"1",f"'ll:J,,t"""'J'Hii'_3[:jl i,**;'#^{?li3t*31i?i3oiJoi' $"oi;i["iil,ri' oeti[on"''i" the interest or justrce}

¶23

lA NO.3 0F^2022:

¶24

N'l Act^{praving that} Petition^{under Section320(2)Cr'P C R/-w- S9"11"1,]1-7.} ";r tn" tigr'.court^{mavbe pleased} for the reasons to oermit the^{petitioner stated in the nu'"} ""t"t^n" ii "pl"vl"g^{"#ti'i inio} "kiJ"it'^{compromisewith the Resoondents/} jj'":"'f^'={is [-*;il#-t$[+"i#";*ffi^{illTir,ihxits,n:",} This^{petition comingo-n for hearing uponperusing- lhe Merrorandumor} irlmi nat Revis'on q,o, no "'oi "'n^{:*lhl :Fru6r1];,: g:*E:li":' ; 6i1i t,} il3',#: |nolr^{j"ti,""";J"i $"s: "il:'; i'"in-'u n n"oo v a d vocatef ort neRe s oonoe nt} No.1.

¶25

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶26

I-ION'I}LE SI{I .IUSI'ICE K. LAKSI'IMAN

¶27

CRIMINAL IIEVISION CASE No.09 OF 2022 ALO NG WITH LA. Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2022 COM}'ION OII.I)EIT:

¶28

'l'his revision is illed by the petitiorrer - appellant - accused challengine the.jr,rdgurer.rt dated 09.11.201 I^passecl irt Crirninal^Appeal r.-o. I I 5 o1' 201 6 bv the lealned Special .ludge fbl trial ol Cases^under the Sciredule-cl Castes/the Schedulecl^{-l'ribes (l)rcvcrrtionOl Atrocities)} .-\cl - cuur - 'lll .\dditionrl Sc'ssiot.ts Jtrclgc at Nizarnabaci^conlilnliltg thc corrviction uncl sentcltce'^intposctl lrr thc^{learrtcd l{dditional} .lLrdicial \4irgistrate^o1' First Class.^{\izr\rnabacl.t'ide} .jr'rclgment^dated 10. l0.l() l(r in C.C . \o.517 ol' 10l l lirr tlrc^{<rl'lcltcc rtrrclcr Se-ction -} I 3 8 o1' th,-j \r'goti atrlc Instrtt rttcrtts,\ct,^{I EtS ] .}

¶29

A tter passing thc albrcsaid .itrdgmcnt,^{since the par-ties have} entered into cottlproulise,^{alongwith the said |cvision,respondent} No.1 - complainartt tllccl I.A.Nos.2^and I^{ol 2021to perrnit hinr to} c'r'1tL'r into con.tpt'omise^{ancl to ctltllpotrnclLhe ol-lerlceby accluittingthc} lrccLrsccl.

¶30

l. 'idc orclcl darccl^{05.01.1022.this C'oLrtt, itlicl lccorditrgthe} subntissions^ptaclc by tlte lclntcd^{clttltsel lill thc} llctitiollct^{as r.r.cllas}

¶31

¶32

Ai./ ( r i li ( , //, ,,' -'ir '-'

¶33

respondent No.l, directed the palties to appear betbre the Secretarl,, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyclerabad. on ol before 20.01.2022 lor their iclentification and also directr'cl the Secretary to sLrbnrit a reporl by' 20.01.1012. Irr courpliance riith thc said order, the Secretar) has subrnittccl his lcport daturl 07.01 .l()ll.

¶34

In the report of the Sccretarl',^"['elangana lJigh CoLrrt L.eual Services Cornmittee, I-lyderabad, it is stated that in obecliencc- ol'thc orders dated 05.01.2022, the petitioner and lesponclent No.l ha\e appeared before hinr along rvith their respective counsel and on examination and verification of their-palticulars tl'ont their Aaclhar Cards, they were tallied. Thus. the identification ol both the parties has been.cstablished.

¶35

The parties hcrein have filed a.joint menro ol'conrploruise

¶36

stating that at the intervention ol the elders, they have settled the disputes betrveen thern anticabl."-. Pursuant. to the said scttlentcnt, tlte petitioner - accused has agreed to pay an alroLrnt o1' Rs. i 1 .00,000i(Rupees Eleven l,akhs Only) to respondent No. I torvarcls tirll and tlnal settlement as against the cht-'clue untount ol' Rs.l1,00.000i(Rupees Twenty One l-akhs Only) and rcspondent No.I has agreerl to

¶37

¶38

receivc the sanre and that he has no obiection to set^asidethe coliviction and sentence intposed by the leamed Magistrate^{on the} pctitioner herein in lhe above C.C. and as conf-trmed by the appetlate Court in the above Crirninal Appeal. The said^joint merro of compronrise and the repolt of the Secretary are^placed on record.

¶39

(r. It is relevant to uote that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶40

Danrodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.t hetd that in cases of dishonour of checlues. colxpensatory aspect of the remedl' should^be til'en priority ovel the punitive aspect. The Coutl noted^{that majority} o1' chcque bounce cases are being con-rplomised by '"vay of conrpor-rnding. albeit dr-rring the later slages ol Iitigation. This leads^to arrears pending belble the Coufts. The Apex Court held that it^r'r'ould be desirable il the par-ties choose to cornpound^{the offence during} earlier stages ol litigation. Therefore, the Apex Court^{issuedcertain} guidelincs pennitting tl-re pirrties to comprotrise the matter^and compound the olfence under Section li8 of^the N.l.^{Act whichare} extracted as lbllorvs:-

¶41

"(i) In tlrc cilcumslanccs. it is ploposed as Ibllos's:

r{2oto) 5 scc 661

h!^|

t- ti R I ,)itt t,t :tt.:

¶46

(a) T'hat directions can bc given thar (he Writ o1'sunrntons be suitablv modiflcd making it clear to thc acctrsetl tlrat hc coulcl rnake an application lbr cortrpoundinc ol'the ollctrccs at thc first or sccond hcrling of thc case anrl that i1'suclr an application is rnadc. colnpoundine may be allou,ed bv the court rvithout irnposing any costs on the accuscd.

¶47

(b) II' the accused docs not rnakc an application lbr compounding as afbresaid, then if' an application lbr cornpounding is made belorc the Magistrate ar a subsequent stage, compounding can be allou,ed subject to the condition that the accused will be requircd to pay l0% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition lbr compounding with the Legal Services Authority. or such authority as the Court deems fit.

¶48

(c) Sirnilarly" il'the application foi cornpouncling is nrade befbrc the Sessions Court or a High Court in revisictn or appeal, such cornpounding nta) be aliolr,ed on thc condition that thc accused pays l57o of the clieclue amount by way' of costs.

¶49

(d) irinalll'. il'thc application lirr compouncling is nrrtle belorc thc Suprerne Court, the llqure rvoultl incrcasc to 20Yo of thc checlue amount.'"

¶50

In the memol'andum of compronrise, it has beeu mentionecl

¶51

that respondent No.l has received tlre amounr ol Rs. I 1,00.000/(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only) towards full and final settlement and rhat

¶52

¶53

t i

¶54

Kt../ ( rl /l ( ,, /r, ,,/ -r-'-'

¶55

hc has no ob.jection il the conr,iction and sentcnce imposcd on the petitioner'- accused is set aside.

¶56

[n vicri, the said rcporr of the SL.creral,, Telangana Fligh Court Legal Selvices Committee, Hyderabad and the cornpromise entered between the petitior-rer and respondent No. 1, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 ol 2021 are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is aliowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, vide judgrnent dated 20. 10.20 16 in C.C. No.527 ol 2013 for the offence Lrnder Section - i 3 8 of the Negotiable Instrurnents Act, I 88 I and as confir'rned by the learned Special Judge for tr.ial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes/the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act - cum - VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Nizarnabad, vide.iudgment dated 09.12.2021 in Crirninal Appeal No.ll5 of 2016 is hereby set aside and accordingly the petitioner - appellant - accused is acquitted o1'the aforesaid ollence sub.iect to payrnent of costs of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the credit of the Director, Sainik Welfai'e, llyderabad, (Savings A/c. No.52188926279, Srate Bank of lndia, Shantinagal Branch (20070), IFSC Code:

¶57

) \

¶58

¶59

i' ( ? /i t ,, /,, ,ri -' ,- -'

¶60

SB1N0020070. NllCIt No. 50000.1057) r.r,ithin ten (10) clavs ilorl

¶61

toda)" ancl file proof'ol'the sanle int() thc I(egistrr.

¶62

As a scqr-rel. thc rniscellaneoLrs applications. il' an'. pcncling in

¶63

the'rcvision shall stand oloscd.

¶64

//TRUE COPY'

¶65

"':l3i^t\Yt?$'[tR rru/

¶66

SECTION OFFICER

¶67

¶68

The Special Judge for the^{Trial of the cases under SCs/ STs(POA) Act-cum-Vlll} Additional Sessions Judge,^{at Nizamabad.(withjoint memo)}

¶69

The I Additional Judicial Magistrate^{of FirstClass,Nizamabad(withjoint memo)} 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor^{(TG),HighCourt for theSlateof Telangana,} Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶70

Ohe CC to Sri Kondadi^{Ajay Kumar, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶71

One CC to Sri N.srushman^{Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)} 6. Two CD Copies

¶72

One Spare Copy

¶73

(along with a copy of Joint memo of compromise)

¶74

¶75

Cost Memo:

¶76

Nqtq^{Amount paid by M/s. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Counsel for the petilioner towards} bv codt ot Ri.Z5,O0O1^{(Rupeeiiwentyfive thousand only) asdirecled by this} -rmoosed Hdn ble C6urt order dated Oglo3l2022^{in favour of Director, Sainik Welfare,Hyderabad} (Savings A/d.l..lo. s 2188926279 State Bank of^{lndia.shantinagar Branch, & 20070IFSC} boOe SgtNlOOZOOTo^{MICR No.500004057 and filed memovide proof of compliance} USR No.27179 of 2022^{dated2510312022}

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/0312022

COMMON ORDER

CRLRC.No.09^{of 2022} ALONG WITH^{I.A.NOS.2 & 3 OF .2022}

¶81

ALLOWING THE^CRL.R.C.

¶82

¶83

.r"4rr*9Ft

¶84

HIGH^{COURT *-JffflfJTDOFTELANGANAAT}

¶85

BETWEEN:

¶86

c^nalMadhukars/oBhumaian'Age:41years'Occ:BusrnestR/o'i r\o. z-z-salr,^{opp' to sinolBl l4uithins center' Kumargallv'} Nizamabad,^{NizamabadDistrlct} ...Petitioner/Accused

¶87

AND

¶88

K sniva^{Kurrars/o t'in:1'',f;ii,:.'.5T;:} ffi:JX,"j:3tfl[I. Business,^{R/oPadmalaYaStuorc}

¶89

Represented^{by thePublic Prosecutor} 2 ) The^{Stateof Telangana'} t-lioh Court^{of Telangna}

¶90

Respondents/ComPlai^nant

¶91

JOINT^MEMO

¶92

May^it Pledse YoLlr^rordshiP'

¶93

It is to^{submitthattire allegationin the complaint is that on} 1, 28.10,2011^{Accusedhas taken an amountof Rs i6'00'000/-from} in" .o*ptuinunt^{by issuing a cheque bearingN0030052 dated:} 28.02.2013^{in favourof conrplainantdrawn of UTI Bank Nizamabad} Branch^{for an amountof Rs 21 Lakhsandon presentingit' the} same was^{returnedun paid wlth a return memo for thereason} Account^Closed.

¶94

It^{is submittedthat the 1'r Respondentflled a complalnt} against^{Petitloner herein beforethel Additionalludicial Magistrate} of first^{Ciass, Nizamabadfor the offence punishable undersection} 138ofN]ActandtheSameWaSregisteredaC.C.No.52Tl2013and the court^vide ludgment^{dated20-10-2016 convicted and sentenced}

¶95

¶96

¶97

petitioner to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a^perlod of 1^year and pay flne of Rs,5,000/- and in default to^pay shall^undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

¶98

It is submitted that^questloning the above said -ludgment^of Trial Court Petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No. 115 of 2016 before^the Special ludge for the Trial of Cases under SCs/STs^{(POA) Act-Cum-} VIII Addl.Sessions Judge At Nizamabad and the same^was dismissed on 09-12^2021 confirming the Trial Court^ludgment, Petitioner filed Criminal Revision before this Hon'ble Court questioning the ludgment in Crl,Appeal No. 115 of 2016 along with this petition.

¶99

It is submitted that the intervention of the well wishers and elders of the both parties settled the malter amicably out oF the court and the petitloner gave an amount of Rs,11,000,00/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) to the Respondent/Complainant towards full and final settlement ln view of compromise. That due to the sald reasons, Respondent came forward to wjthdraw the complaint for which Respondent also executed an Affidavit stating that he ls ready to withdraw the above said case.

¶100

5.^. It is submitted that the matter is settled out of the couft, I/Respondent is readyto viithdraw the case against the petitioner considering all the above circumstances this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to setaside/quash the judgment dated 20-10-2016 passed by I Additional ludicial lvlagistrate of First Class, Nizamabad ln C.C.No.527l2013 by acquitting the petitioner/Accused, other,v se the petitioner and his famil! men]bers wil suffer irreparable loss.

¶101

"r*/a

¶102

It is therefore^{prayedthat thisHon'bleCourt may be pleased} and setaside/quash^the to record^{the compromisestatement} by I^{AdditionalJudicial} judgment dated^{20-10-2016passed} in C.C.N0.52712013^bY Magistrate of^{First Class,Nizamabad} acquiting^{the petitionerin the interestof justice and pass such} otherorderororders.maydeemfitandproperinthecircumstances of the case

¶103

Hence, this loint^Memo

¶104

HYDERABAD DATE: 03,01.2022 (_x/) .-ry Petitioner

¶105

-14t,4.t Cou nsel [or'Petitioner

¶106

v.^{q .} i--4^l--* - Ccjun(el^{fbrRespondenl}

¶107

r@-\Y' Respondent

¶108

l l.lL S 14 l4:
lf 5 lo: r,-:,r ('(.I
a
a o&5r.r r.t!

Gopal Madhukar v. K.Shiva Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Madhukar v. K.Shiva Kumar and Another

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

Puchakayala Rajani Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Savalam Koteswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Savalam Koteswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

S. Surya Prakash Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Dr. Satya Pavan Pakala, And 2 other Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Pagilla Nageshwara Rao Vs State of Telangana