Allowed

Garlapati Narsi Reddy, Nalgonda Dt., v. Morsu Devika, Nalgonda Dt and Anr.

Telangana HC18 Jul 2022CRLRC/94/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision and IA applications to compound an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon finding a valid compromise and full settlement between the parties, the convicting judgment was quashed and the petitioner was acquitted. The compensation deposit was directed to be refunded.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence were set aside; the accused was acquited; a joint memo for compounding was registered; and the trial court was directed to refund the deposit.

Garlapati Narsi Reddy, Nalgonda Dt., Vs Morsu Devika… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTY TWO

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH^REDDY

¶5

l.A.Nos. 1 &2 OF 2022 IN/AND

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 94 OF 2017

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 94 OF 20'17

¶8

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of^{Cr.P.Cagainst the} Judgment daled 2-1-2017^passed in Crl.A.No.^{19312015on the file of the Court of} the Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, at Miryalguda, confirming^{the Judgment dated} 14-12-2015^passed in CC.No. 1089/2012 on the^{file of the Court of the Judicial} Magistrate of First Class, Miryalguda^.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Garlapati Narsi Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy,aged^{43 years,Occ: [Iesthri, Ryo.} H.No. 7-'l 136/1 , Bangarugudda, Miryalguda Town,^{Nalgonda District.}

¶11

Petitioner/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

Morsu Devika, Wo. Narsimha, aged 43^{years, Occ: Business, R/o. Ramnagar} Locality, Miryalguda Town & Mandal, Nalgonda^{District. ..RespondenV} RespondenUComplainant

¶14

The State of Telangana, rep. by the Public^{Prosecutor, High Courtof} Judicature, at Hyderabad.

¶15

Respondent

¶16

CRL.R. C.M.PNO:'147 OF 20¹⁷

¶17

Petition under Section 397(1) of^{Cr PC prayingthat in the} circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the HighCourt} may be^pleased to suspend the^{execution of sentence and releasethe petitioenr on} baiiin Crt.A.No.1g3l2O1S dated^{02.0'1.2017 on the file of the Vlll Additional Sessions} Jduge, Miryalguda, Nalgonda^{District,agaisntin Cc.No 1089/2012dated 14.12.2015} on the file of the learned Judicial^{Magistrateof First Class, Miryalguda, Nalgonda} District,^pending disposal of CRLRC.^{No. 94 of 2O17, on the file of the HighCourt'}

¶18

CRL.R.C.M.PNO:146 OF 2017

¶19

Petition under Section 482 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 suspend the operation of the^{judgment passed} in CC.No.1089/2012, dated 14.12.2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District in so far as of^payment of compensation of Rs. 2,51,0001 in pursuance of the as confirmed by the Judgment in Crl.A.No.193/2015, dated O2.O1.2017 by the learned Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, at Miryalguda,^pending disposal of CRLRC . No. 94 of 2017, on the file of the High Court.

¶20

l.A.Nos. 1&2 OF 2022

¶21

Between:

¶22

Morsu Devika, W/o. Narsimha, aged 43^years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Ramnagar Locality, Miryalguda Town, Nalgonda District. ..PETITIONERI/Respondent No.'1l Complainant

¶23

AND

¶24

'1. Garlapati Narsi Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy,aged 43 years, Occ: Mesthri, R/o H.No. 7-1 136/1, Bangarugudda, Miryalguda Town, Nalgonda District. ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶25

The State of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, at Hyderabad.

¶26

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No. 2

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶28

Petition under Section 320(6) Cr PC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petitron, the High Court may be^pleased to permit the Petitioner herein to compromise the case with the Respondent No. 1/Petitioner/Accused herein, by compounding the offence^punishable with Sec. 138 N.l. Act., of which, the Respondent No.1 is convicted, and sentenced^to undergo^S.l. for 1 year, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,51,0OO1-, by the Learned J F C M, Miryalguda, by his Judgment in C.C.No- 1089 of 2012, dl. 14-12-2005, as conflrmed^by the Hon'ble VIll Addl. Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, in Crl. A.No.^'193 of 2015, dt. 02-012017, consequently direct the Learned Judicial Magistrate of^First Class,^Miryalguda, to refund the deposit made by the Respondent^No.1 herein,^{in pursuance of the} order of this Hon'ble Court in Crl-R.C.M.P.No.146^of 2017ⁱⁿ Crl-R.C.^{No. 94} of^2017, daled 11-01-2017.

¶29

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶30

Pelition under Section 147 of N.l.Act^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased} to permit the Petitioner herein to record the compromise,ⁱⁿ Crl.R.C.No.⁹⁴ of^2017, and^quash the conviction and sentence^passed in the^judgmentin C.C.No.¹⁰⁸⁹ of

¶31

2012, daled 14-12-2015, on the file of the Learned Judicial^{Magistrateof First Class,} Miryalguda, as confirmed by the Judgment^{passed by} the^{LearnedVlll Addl.} Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, in Crl.A.No.^'193 of^2015, dated^02-01-2017, consequently direct the Learned Judicial Magistrate of^First Class,^{Miryalguda, to} refund the deposit made by the Respondent No.1 herein,^{in pursuance of the} order of this Hon'ble Court in Crl.R.C.M.P. 146 o'f 2017ⁱⁿ Crl.R.C.No.⁹⁴ of^{2017, dated} 11-01-2017 .

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner in CRL..R.C. and

¶33

Respondent No.1 in l-A.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2022 .. SRl. M MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'l in Crl.R.C.

¶34

And Petitioner in l.A.Nos. 1 &2 ol 2022

¶35

...Mr. G. JAGAN MOHAN

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in Crl.R.C.

¶37

AND l.A.Nos. 1&2of 2022

¶38

...Public Prosecutor^(TS)

¶39

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶40

IIONOU ltr\ Bl.l. SR l,f⁽ IS'l'l^(ll'l r.SA N'l'l I OSI I li lal)DY

¶41

l.A.Nos.l and 2 ol 2022

¶42

I n/a n rl

¶43

Crirrrinal llcvision^(lasc No.94 of 2lll7

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

l) -['he present Criminal Rcvision Casc is fllcd undcr Sections 397 and 401 of Cr'.P.C. questioning the^judgmcnt dated 02.01 .20 I 7 passed in Crl.A.No.l93 ol 2015 on thc filc ol'the Vlll Additional Sessions Judgc, Miryalaguda confirming thc conviction and scntence imposcd by thc Judicial Magistralc ol' [rirst Class, Miryalaguda lor thc off'cncc punishablc undcr Scction 138 ol the Negotiable Instnrnrcnts Act. I 881

¶46

-l-he sccond lcspondcnt . hclein lllcd a privatc cornplaint against thc pctitioncr' lbr an ofl'cncc punishablc undcr Scction 138 of the Negotiablc lnstrurncnts Act, lSli l. Vidc .iudgrrcnt, dated 14.12.201 5, the lcarncd Judicial MagisrraLc ol' l:irst Class, Mirayalaguda convictcd and scntcnccd thc pctitioncl to unclcrgo Simple Irrprisorlme nt lbr a pe liod o1'onc ycar and sentcnccd to pay

¶47

)

¶48

a fine of Rs.2,5 I,000/-('l'wo lakhs lilry one rhousand only), in deflault, the petitioner shall undergo Simple lmprisonment lor a period ol onc rnonrh. Challenging the same, the complainant prelerred Crl.A.No. 193 ol 2015 before the Vilt Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda. l'hc tearned Scssions Judgc by his judgment, dared 02.01.2017, dismissed the appeal confirming rhc conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Coufi in C.C.No. l0g9 ot'2012, dated 14. 12.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the prescnr revision is fl lcd.

¶49

Pending rcvision, l.A.Nos. I and 2 ol 2022 are filcd seeking permission ol' thc Clou( to compoun<J thc oll-encc undcr Section 138 of the Act and to rccord the cornpromise and to direct the trial Coufl to rclund the compensation alrounl depositcd by the petitioner/accused.^-l'oday thc comprainant and accused are present and thcy arc identilled by thcir respecrive counsel. When examined, the complainant slatcd that a1 the instance ol thc elders, they have scttlcd thc mattcr out of the Court and the petitioner/acc used has paid the cntirc amount which hc was duc ro her and she has reccivcd the samc and she has no objection for

¶50

acquittal ol- the accuscd in thc abovc crirrinal rcvision case.^'Ihc affidavit of thc complainant lilcd along with thc petition also aftlnns the sarrc. Along with l.A.No.2 o1- 2022, a joint rncmo to that cff'cct, signcd by botl-r tlrc parl;cs, is also lilcd.

¶51

Scction 147 of the Act rc;rds as undcr;

¶52

"Notwithstanding anything containcd in thc Codc of Criminal Proccdurc, l9l3 (2 ol'1974) every olfcnce punishable under this Act shall bc compoundablc".

¶53

ln vicw olthc comprornisc arrivcd at betwccn thc parties and taking into consideratiorr Scction lr41 ol thc Negotiable Instruments Act and thc cilcurnstanccs undcr which the present I.As have becn filed, pcr mission lbr cornpounding the offence is accorded

¶54

I lencc. I.A.Nos.l and 2 arc ordcrcd and conscquently. the Crirninal Revision Casc is allowcd and thc conviction and scntence irnposcd by thc lcarned Judicial Magisrrarc o1' I--irst Class, Miryalaguda, vide judgrrcnt datcd 14.I 2.20 l5 in C.C. No. 1089 o1' 20 1 2 lbr thc ollcnce undcr Section LI I o1' thc Ncgotiablc Instrurnents A ct, I tl8I and as conllrrlcd bv the lcarncd Vlll

¶55

¶56

¶57

Additional Sessions Judge ar Miryalaguda, vide judgment, dated 02.01 .2017, in Crirninal Appeal No.l93 of 2015, is hereby set aside and accordingly thc petitioner _ appellant _ accused is acquitted ol' the albresaid olTcnce.

¶58

l 'l-he petitione r/acclrscd has dcpositcd l/4,r, ol thc colnpensation amount befbrc thc Judicial Magistratc of l:irst Class Court, Mirayalguda pursuanr ro rhc orders orrhis court, dated r r .or.2017. As per the tcrrns ol. the compromise and joint mcmo, the complainant agrccd fbr relirnd the compensalion amount to the petilioner/accused, thc trial Court is dircctcd to rcfund the compensation deposited to the petit ioner/acc used.

¶59

8 Misccllancous pctitions. il-any, pcnding in this revision shall

¶60

stand closcd.

¶61

SD/.A,V.S.S. C. S,M.SARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

'1. The Vlll Additional Sessions Judge , at Miryalguda.(with records, if any)

¶66

¶67

The Judicial First Class Magistrate , at Miryalguda.(with records,^lf any)

¶68

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana,^at Hyderabad.

¶69

One CC to SRl. M MADHAVA REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

One CC to SRl. G. JAGAN MOHAN Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

One spare copy CDL \ V

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810712022

ORDER

l.A.Nos. 1&2 OF 2022 IN/AND

¶77

CRLRC.No.94 of 2017

¶78

' :' Sr4 re,
(
Q:
'i) 24 AUF 202
"/-.

¶79

ALLOWING THE C'RL.R.C

@ s. >> '/-

/t!il

HIGH COURT FOR THE Sl ATE OF TELANGANA AT II'DERABAD.

¶85

l.A.No. ?--- of 2oz2

¶86

¶87

Crl.R.C.No. 94 of Z0t7

Between!

Morsu Dcvika,

Wo. Narsim}a,

Aged 43 years, Occ: Business-

¶92

Ivo. Ramnag,ar Localitv

¶93

Miryalguda Town & IvianOat, Natgoonoa Disrict.

¶94

A N D I Garlapati Narsi ReddvS/o Venkar Reddy, Aged 43 years, Occ: Mesthri

¶95

,,.petitionerlRespondent No.l/Complainant.

¶96

i#ilI'n*;';llil',1;,?,ttXll;f

¶97

; ...,Respondent/petitioner/Accused.

¶98

2 The State ofTelansnaRep. by its public Frosecutorntgh Court ofJudicature at IlyderiLbad.

¶99

....Respondent/Respondent No.2.

¶100

JOINT N{EMO

¶101

It is submifted that the l compoundrheoffenceueui,.,,r,"P;:"ip1:;:ff Li:::,ffi."#"H:":ffi ": of the settlement arrived amicably, in between the parties, ou,** ,n" cout, and compromised the matter behveen petitioner, and the Respondent No.1 herein, in view ofrhe inrervention oftre etoelle

¶102

For the reasons stated abo\ it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to permit the petitioncr' of 2017, andquash the "orr,",,o, '"t"'n to record the compromise' in crl'R C'No' 94 r 08e or 20 r 2, dated r 4- r 2_20 r 5, ;:,i;: #:HH:;:::j:1ffi :;:,:;":1

i ir ir

; l

I j I l

Class, Miryalguda, as confirmed by the Judgment passed by the Leamed VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, in Crl.A.No. 193 of 2015, dated 02-0l-2017, consequently direcr the Leamed Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalguda, to refimd the deposit made by the Respondent No.l herein, in pursuance of the order of this Hon'ble court in crr.R.c.M.p. (sR) No. 1o8g of 2017 in crr.RC. No. 94 of 2017, (Crt.R.C. (SR) No. 1088 of or orders as rhis Hon,bre .",. ,,:;:l::T:;:::'J:';T:T"#*:il'i:

¶107

case.

¶108

( r. rL'(-a r p,

¶109

(Garlapati Narsi Il

¶110

)

¶111

x |-pvika, (Morsu Devika)

¶112

cntl Counsel for the Il€s I)0n Pctilioner/Accu scd.

¶113

C for the Petitioner/ Respon dent No.l/Complainant.

Garlapati Narsi Reddy, Nalgonda Dt., v. Morsu Devika, Nalgonda Dt and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garlapati Narsi Reddy, Nalgonda Dt., v. Morsu Devika, Nalgonda Dt 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

Singarapu Uppalaiah and 4 Others Vs Katkuri Rajamallaiah and Another

N.Ram Mohan, Hyd., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Singarapu Yellaiah, Vs Katicuri Rajamallaiah

Kola Jagannadha Reddy Vs Kola Swapna

Kola Jagannadha Reddy Vs Smt. Kola Swapna

Kola Jagannadha Reddy Vs Smt. Kola Swapna