Allowed

B.Jayaprakash v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Sept 2022CRLRC/731/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail/revision petitioner's application to compromise the criminal revision case. The court recorded that the parties settled the dispute, allowing the accused to withdraw upon payment of compensation, thereby quashing the earlier conviction order.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the compromise, set aside the conviction judgment, cancelled bail bonds, and permitted withdrawal of deposited amount.

B.Jayaprakash Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEIUBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶7

l.A.NO.1 OF 2022

¶8

IN/AND

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 731 OF 2019

¶10

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 731 OF 2019

¶11

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.^{1973 against} the Judgment made in Criminal Appeal^{No. 1378 of 2017 dated. 09.05.2019on} the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, at Hyderabad, preferred} against the Judgment in C.C.No.11B of^{2O16dated. 30.11.2017 on the file of the} Court of the lll Special Magistrate at, Hyderabad.

¶12

Between:

¶13

B.Jayaprakash, S/o Late B.Chennaiah Aged about^{42 Years Occupation} Businebs Fyo Off. 1 9/A, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad^{Rio Flat No.30'1} ,^{ll Floor,} Srinivesa Residency, Krishnanagar Colony,^{Kakaguda, SecunderabadAlso} Rl/o Flat No.204, Helen Towers, Aruna^{EnclaveTrimulgherry, Secunderabad}

¶14

...Accused/Petitioner

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by^{its Public Prosecutor, High Courtfor} the State of the Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶17

...RespondenURespondent

¶18

2 B.Pavitra, Wo B.Devender, Aged about 32 Years, Occupation^{House Wife} No 3291 Potti Sriramulunagar, Masab tank, Hyderabad

¶19

... Com plaina nURes Ponde nt

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

Petition under Section 397⁽¹⁾ Crl.P.C.^{praying that for the reasons stated} in the memorandum of^grounds of the Criminal^{Revision case the HighCourt may} be pleased to suspend the sentence in Crl.A.No.1378^{of 2017 dated.09'05.2019} passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,^pending disposal^of Crl.R.C.No.73l of 2019, on the file of the^{High Court.}

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶23

Between:

¶24

B.Pavitra, W/o B.Devender, Aged^{about 32 Years, Occupation. House Wife,} R/o.329/ Potti Sriramulunagar,^{lVlasab tank, Hyderabad}

¶25

...Petitioner/ComplainanURespondent

¶26

AND

¶27

B.Jayaprakash, S/o Late^{B.Chennaiah Agecl about 4-2. Years Occupation} Busineis R/o Off 19/A, Bansilalpet,^{SecunderabadRio Flat No.301} '^{ll Floor,} Srinivesa Residency, Krishnana!ar^{Colony, Kakaguda, Secunderabad Also} R/o Flat No.204, Heilen Towers,^{Aruna Enclave TrimulgherrY-S:H?g:[ft?j1"..}

¶28

2 The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Public Prosecutor, High Courtfor} the State of the Telangana'^at Hyderabad

¶29

...RespondenuRespondent

¶30

Petition under Section^{482 Crl.P.C. prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High Court may be} pleased to vacate the interim orders^{passed in Crl.R.C. No 731 of 2019 dated:} 11tO7l2}1g and dismiss the Criminal^{Revision Petition in Crl.R.C.731 of 2019}

¶31

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶32

Between:

¶33

B.Pavitra, W/o B.Devender, Aged^{about 32 Years, Occupation. HouseWife,} R:/o. 329/ Potti Sriramulunagar,^{Masabtank,Hyderabad}

¶34

...Petitioner/Respondent No.2/Complainant

¶35

AND

¶36

The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Public Prosecutor, HighCourt, at} Hyderabad, for the State Telangana.

¶37

2 B.Jayaprakash, S/o Late^{B.Chennaiah, Aged about 42 Years,} OccJpition.Business,^{Fi/o. Off. 19/A, Baniilalpet,Secunderabad,Rl/o. Flat} No.3Ot, ll Floor, Srinivesa Residency,^{Krishnanagar Colony, Kakaguda,} Secund'erabad Also, R/o. Flat No.204,^{HelenTowers, Aruna Enclave} Trimulgherry, Secunderabad

¶38

...Petitioners/Petitioner/Accused

¶39

Petition under Section 138 of^{Negotiable lnstrumentsAct, praying that in} the circumstances stated^{in the accompanyingaffidavit. the High court may be} pleased to permit the petitioner herein /^{respondentNo.2 / complainant to}

¶40

compromise with the^{respondent No. 2 I petitioner/ accused and there by allow} the present Criminal^{Revision Case}

¶41

Counsel for the^{Petitioner in Grl.R.C.731 of 2019 and} l.A.No.1 ot 2019 and^{Respondent No.2} in l.A.No.1 oI 2020^{and I.A.No.2ot 2022:SRIKUNCHA SUNILGOUD}

¶42

Counsel for the ResPondent^{No.2 in} Crl.R.C.731 of 2019^{l.A.No'1 of 2019} and the Petitioner in^{l.A.No.1 of 2020} And l.A.No.1 of 2022:

¶43

SMT. M' VIDYAWATHI

¶44

Counsel for the ResPondent^No.1 in Crl.R.C.731 of 2019 And all the l.As: THE PUBLIC^PROSECUTOR

¶45

The Court made the^{following:COMMON ORDER}

¶46

TtlE HONOUR.A.IJLII^{DR. JUSI'ICEG. R:\DIIA R:\NI}

¶47

Intcrlocutorv Application^{No.Ol of 2022} tn ( rirrrinal Rer ision Case No.73 I of 2019 and Crirninal Revision C^{ase No.731of 2019}

¶48

CO\INIOn.- ORDER:

¶49

This Criminal Itevision Case^{is filed by the revision petitioner/ accused} under Sections 397 &^{401 ofcriminalProcedurecode, 1973 challengingthe} judgrnent dated 09.05.2019 passed in criminal^{AppealNo. 1378 ol 20 l7 on the} trle of the Courl of the^{MetropolitanSessionsJudge,Hyderabad,confirming the} judgment and conviction passed in calendar^{case No.l 18 of 2016, dated} 30.11.2017, on the^{file of the Iu special Magistrate, Hyderabadfor the offence} under Section 138 of^{NegotiableInstrumentsAct (in shofi, the 'N'i' Act')} sentencing the^{revision petitioner / accused to uirdergosimple imprisonment for} a period of six^{months,and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensationto} the complainant under^{Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. within two months, in default} of payment to undergo^{simple imprisonmentfor a period of six months'}

¶50

Interlocutory Application^{No.1 of 2022 in criminalRevision case} No.73i of 20i9^{is fiied by the respon<ient icompiainantto recorrithe}

¶51

,.:2::

¶52

comprourise \'ith the revision petitioncr / accusetj ancl to allori thc Crirninal Revision C'ase.

¶53

l'hc revision petitioncr / accused and the respondent i corttltlainant are present belore the Coufi today. The parties have also filed thcir respective Aadhaar Cards in proof of their identity in the open Courr.

¶54

The respondent / cornplainant have agreed to cotnpromisc tlle matter and settlc the dispute by filing the Joint Memo of Compromise^{(supra) agreeing to} receive an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-^(vide Receipt, dated 05.01.20' l.^annexed thereto) lrom the revision petitioner / accused towards full and final settlement. The respondent / complainant turther submitted that he^{has no future} claims whatsoever against the revision petitioner / accused^{with rcgard to the same}

¶55

In view of above, the compromise is recordcd in the open court as per^the Memorandum of Understanding i Compromise, dated 05.01.2021,^{which is also} signed by both the pa(ies. The respondent / complainant^reported that^he voluntarily agreed for the said compromise.

¶56

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 09.05.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.l378 of 2017 on the r:, ..c r c..--:.. ilis ui iilc⁽ OLii-r Oi Iile r]lcl.IUpulltall Jcs5lUIlS Juulls. n)uslaUau. LUlllllllllllB tIltr judgment of conviction passed in Calendar Case No. I I 8 ol 20 16, dated

¶57

..4..

¶58

DT.GRR,J rlr c 731 2019

¶59

30.1i.20 17, on thc llleolrhc III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. consequenriy, Interlocutory Application No. I ol 2022 in crirninal Revision case No.73 i of 2019 is allowecl

¶60

Learned counsel for the respondent / comprainant is pe.nittec to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousanci only) depositeci in the courl below in criminal Appeal No.t37g of 2017 on the file of thc learned Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad, to the credit of c.c.No. 1i8 of 2016 on the file olthe III Special Metropolitan Magrstrate. The bail bonds fumished by the revision petitioner / accused shall stand cancelled.

¶61

8" Accordingly, the criminar Revision case is allowed as above. No costs.

¶62

9 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Revision. shall stanri closed.

¶63

Sd/.A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SHARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1 The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad (With records if any)

¶68

2 The lll Special N,4agistrate at, Hyderabad (With records if any)

¶69

3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶70

4 One CC to Sri. KUNCHA SUNIL GOUD, Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

q One CC to Smt M. VIDYAWATHI, Advocate [OPUC] b Two CD Copies

¶72

7 One Spare Copy

¶73

A,--

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710912022

COMMON^ORDER

? 1EL4
o
I
i:) v
!!L .s 'I
I h: tt
-€
t <br><br>,r'

¶78

l.A.NO.1^{of 2022}

¶79

ln/And

¶80

CRLRC.No.731^{of 2019}

¶81

ALLOWING^{THE I.A. AND CRIMINAL REVISIONCASE}

¶82

;<br>r-/

B.Jayaprakash v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Jayaprakash v. The State of Telangana

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

Vangaveeti Madhu Venkata Ranga Rao, Nalgonda and Anr., Vs Vangaveeti Swarajyam, Nalgonda Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Canara Bank, T.S.R.Complex, Secunderabad and 17 Others Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Public Prosecutor, Hyd and 2 Others

Gummala Santhosh, Khammam Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

M/s Advance Computers, Vs M/ s Ramakrishna Tele electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Illendula Sanjeeva Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

B. Hari Krishna Vs the State of Telangana and 4 Others