Allowed

Bojja Srinivas v. State of Telangana And Another

Telangana HC8 Dec 2023CRLRC/2232/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Criminal Revision Case No. 2232/2018 and Interim Applications Nos. 1 and 2/2023, quashing a conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court recorded a compromise between the accused and the complainant, finding that the offence could be compounded.

What did the court decide?

The conviction, sentence, and memorandum of compromise are recorded; the judgment of conviction is set aside; the accused is set at liberty; the offence is compounded.

Bojja Srinivas Vs State of Telangana And Another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

l32ee I

ffi

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

l.A.No.1 and of 23 ln/and

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:2232 OF 2018

¶10

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and^{401 of Cr.PC against} the Judgment 2910612018 made in Crl.A.No.69 ot 2017 on^{the file} of^the Court of ihe Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy^{preferred against the} Order dated 06106;,12017 made in C.C.No.759 of 2013 on^{the file} of^{the Courtof the} Additional Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Sangareddy.

¶11

Between:

¶12

Bojja Srinivas, S/o Ramakishan Rao, Occ-Govt. Teacher,^{Fl/o.H.No.3-4-25,} Netaji Nagar Sanareddy Town and District

¶13

:T . I' ,:"4 ,,?'

¶14

',]-tuJ .i}qiirt" r,'++:r.t

¶15

...Petitioner/Accused

¶16

AND

¶17

1 State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt of Judicatureat} Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and the^{State of} A.P

¶18

...Respondent

¶19

''"*t t

¶20

2 Ivl.Satyanarayana Goud, S/o Veera Goud, Occ: Business,^Fl/o.H.No. 5-1-1O178, Shantinagar, Sangareddy Town^and Diskict

¶21

...RespondenUComplainant

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶23

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in thecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be} pleased to suspend the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.69/2017, dated^2910612018' of Prl. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga^{Reddy Vide Cheque Amount of} Rs.3,00,000r

¶24

ffi

¶25

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶26

Petition under Section 397(1) of 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 enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crl.A.No.69/2017, dated 29106/2018, of Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

-f.ffi.::---

'-'-':-''::

14{

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 320(2) R/w 320(6) and 401 of 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 permit the petitioner to file compound petition in viewbf the compromise between the parties in connection with the CC 759 ot 2013 dt.Odl0612017 on the file of Additional Judicial h/agistrate of First Class Sangareddy, Sangareddy District against the respondent /accused by setting aside the conviction and fine for offences under section 138 of Nl Act.

:,!^j'il 5...irJ

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

M.Salyanarayana Goud, S/o Veera Goud, Occ: Business, Fl/o.H.No 5-1-1O178, Shantinagar, Sangareddy Town and District

¶36

ffi

¶37

... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant in lA.No.1 &2 ot 2O2g

¶38

AND

¶39

1 Bojja Srinivas, S/o Ramaktshan Rao, Occ-Govt. Teacher, R/o.H.No.3_4_25, Netaji Nagar Sanareddy Town and District

¶40

..1; al

¶41

...Respondent /revision^petitioner /Accused in lA.No.1 &2 ot 2O23

¶42

State of Telangana, rep., by its^public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana

¶43

...Respondent /Complainant in lA.No.1 &2 ot 2O23

¶44

Petition under Section 320(2) R/w 320(6) and 401 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitio;, the High Court may be pleased to compound the proceedings in CC 7Sg of 2Oi3 dt.06lo5l2o17 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class Sangareddy,Sangareddy District against the respondent /accused by setting aside the conviction and fine.

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner in CRLRC

¶46

and Respondent No.1 in LA.Nos.1 &2ot2023 Sri Y Pandarinath Goud

¶47

ffi

¶48

ffi

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in CRLRC and Respondent No.2 in l.A.Nos.'1 & 2 of ZO23 Sri Vizarath Ali, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in CRLRC and Petitioner in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2023 :Sri CHJayakrishna

¶51

The Court made the following

: Common Order

ffiiarr

:t4;fa-.

i I

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E. V. VENUGOPAL}

¶58

I.A.No.1 ard,2 of 2o.23 in /and CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASE No.2232oF 2018}

¶59

coM MONORDER:

¶60

The Criminal Revision^{Case is filed againstthe judgmentdated} 29.06.2018^{passed by the learned PrincipalSessionsJudge,Medakat} Sangareddy,^{in Crl.A.No.69} l2Ol7^.

¶61

When the matter is taken^{up for hearing, the learned counsel for} the^{petitionerand ttre unofftcialrespondentNo.2 submittedthat the} parties have entered into^{compromiseand settled the matter out of} Court and^{that the terms of compromise are reduced into writing in the} form of^{memorandumof compromise and that I.A.No-I of 2023has} been filed seeking^{permission to record compromiseand I'A.No.2 of} 2023 has been^{filed to compound the offence.}

¶62

The petitioner and^{the unofficialrespondentare presentbefore} this Court and had asserted^{the termsof compromise.}

¶63

This Court vide Order dated^{05.12.2023directed the petitioner} to deposit 1O,OOO/- to^{the credit of the High courtof TelanganaLegal} Services Committee,^{Hyderabadand further sum of Rs.1O,0OO/- before} the^{TelanganaHigh Court Advocates Associationand file the receipts} along^with a^{memo into the Registry by 07 -12.2023.}

-,r

In compliance to the same, learned counsel for t.he petitioner filed a Memo dated 07.12.2023 stating that as per the directions of this Court, the orders of this Court dated O.5. 12.2023 have been complied ald as per the decision passed by the Honble Supreme court in Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H r and after identifying the parties and verifying the identity cards the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1O,000/- to the High court Legal Services Committee for Telangana vide its receipt No.1458, dt. 06.12.2023 and Rs. 10,0O0/- to the Telangana High Court Advocate Association vide its receipt No. INV 12234L674, dt.O6.t2.2o23. Accordingly I.A.No. I ot 2023 has been allowed granting permission to record compromise ancl I.A.No.2 of 2023 has been allowed compounding the offence and the offence committed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.759 of 2013 on the hte of JMFC Sangareddy as against the revision petitioner stands quashed.

¶68

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending. Having regard to the enabling provision of Section.32. 0f criminal procedure code permission is accorded and the compromise is recorded.

¶69

Accordingly, I.A.No. 1 and,2 of 2023 are allowed and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the convrction and sentence recorded against the petitioner in judgment dated 06.06.2O17 in C.C.No.No.759

'(2olo)^{5 scc} 663

of 2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy which was confirmed in the judgment dated 29.06.2018 in Crl.A.No.69 /2017 t}:e learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy is set aside. Consequently, the accused shall be set at liberty, forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. The memorandum of compromise shall form part of this order.

¶75

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed

¶76

//TRUE^COPY//

¶77

sd/'B' .ATYA'ATHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶78

;.:a;. / ,-iffi(r jlllr4f.,l r ! ltt'rl I

¶79

SECTION^OFFICER

¶80

To,

¶81

The Principal^{SessionsJudge' Medak at Sangareddy} i. iil; ;;;lti;;uiJrdi"i"l^{First"ilassMasistrate at Sansareddv} 3. Two CCs^{to the Public prot"*[i iigh Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad [OUTI

¶82

4 l#';"cCi; il^{Y iandarinathGoud' Advocate [oPUC]} ;. 6;;;a^{io sti c n Javakrishna, Advocate [oPUC]}

¶83

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶84

ADl(kam

¶85

h, PAlong with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise

¶86

NOTE:^{Amountpaid by Sri Y PandarinathGoud' Counsel for thePetitioner} towards^{Costsof Rs'10,000/- (RupeesTen thousandonly) directedby the} Hon'ble Court,^{daledOA'122023 to theHighCourt Legal Services Committee} for Telangana^{and filed Memo of Proof of ComplianceUSR No1 19367 of} 2023 dated:^06.12'2023

¶87

NOTE: Amount^{paid by Sri Y PandarinathGoud' Counsel for thePetitioner} towards^{Costsof Rs 10,0001 (RupeesTen thousandonly) directed by the} Hon'ble Court'^{dated08 12 2023 to the Telangana High CourtAdvocates} Association,^{Hyderabadand filed Memo of Proof of ComplianceUSR No'} 1 19368 of^{2023 dated: 06 12'2023}

¶88

d{t1.,-+9{ r. ti'. ''..,'.

i!' ..,.:. -iql

ffi

'ri\ii

HIGH COURT DATED:0811212023

¶94

4$t
. !t? ':',

¶95

COMMON ORDER

¶96

l.A.No.1 and 2 of 2023 !n/and

¶97

CRLRC.No.2232 of 2018

¶98

ALLOWING THE CRLRC AND l.A.No.f and 2 of 2023

¶99

--:"\ CE" W

¶100

ffi

¶101

( -.<br>'.i.i;h,.
rr,elp:..
{T6i,.r'
3 14 ili;l Lll4
( -r:j
{'
.----:-. -.;,-
;'.
, ,.t
, ,' El
H,S:
ffi
, t.t

¶102

,r#; r+i*;^'

¶103

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS^{PETMONU/S 320(2) R/W} 320(6)AND 401OF^{CODE OF CRIMINALPROCEDURE,1973}

¶104

.-gG I I l ,l.l t' ;#,. *l,t'I

¶105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ]UDICATURE^{AT HYDERABAD FORTHE} STATE OF TELANGANA

¶106

I.A. No. oF 2023 IN Crl.RC.No. 2232 oF 2018

¶107

BETWEEN:

¶108

Bojja Srinivas S/o.Ramakishan^Rao age 50^years, Occ:Govt.^Teacher,

¶109

R/o.H.No.3-4-25, Netaji Nagar Sanareddy Town and District

Petitioner/Accused

I ffi I

AND

l.M.Satyanarayana Goud,^{S/o.VeeraGoud} age 78 years, Occ:Business

¶114

R/o.H.No.5-1- 10/78, Shantinagar, Sangareddy Town and District

¶115

... Respondent/defacto Complainant

¶116

.!. ffi

¶117

2.State of Telangana

¶118

rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

¶119

For the State of Telangana

¶120

Respondent/complainant

¶121

JOINT MEMO

¶122

The petitioner herein and the respondent no.1 submit^{that, on} the advice of the elders, the case^{is compromisedand a petition} seeking the^permission of this^{Hon'bleCourt to compoundthe} offence, separate^{petition is} filed by the^{petitioner herein,in view of} the compromise. filed another separate^{petition to acquit him for} the offence .

¶123

'1ir'* .':^'' l

¶124

lrffita

¶125

Hence the petitioner and the respondent^{are hereby filing the joint} memo

¶126

':--$ Counsel for^Petitioner .orn."#i".pondent

¶127

Petitioner ffi!

¶128

Place Hvderatrad Date zolo)z-)

'l
.iI

f( 1

Date: Z0-1 1-2023

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA Report submitted by the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. Criminal Revisi on case No. 2232 of 2018

¶133

May it please Your Lordship,

¶134

It is respectfutty submitted that Sri y,pandarinath Goud, Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Kowtur Archanl,, Advocate, on behatf of Sri C.H.Jayakrishna, Counset for the Responjent No.2, have appeared, before me today i.e., on 20-11-2023, in obedience to the orders dated 07-11-2023 of the Hon'bl.e High Court for the State of TeL3ngana, atong with their respective parties.

¶135

Petitioner/Accused - Bojja Srinivas, S/o. Ramakrishna Rao has, appeared before me today along w.ith his ldentity Card (Government of t Telangana - Education Department) and Respondent/Comptainant _ M.Satyanarayana Goud, S/o. Veera Goud has atso appeared before me today atong with his Aadhar card. r have verified the particur.ars of both the parties, duLy identified and endorsed by their respective counsel and copies of the same are enctosed herewith. The copies of ldentity Cards of the respective counsel are atso enctosed herewith, When asked, both the parties stated that they have witfutty and without any coercion entered into Compromise.

Considering the same, the identification of both the parties in y, "+the^{Criminal Revision case is estabtished.} i Hence the report.

¶140

¶141

SECRETARY t/c), High Court LegaI Services Committee.

¶142

.ri -.{.
tiiill$
sxm

Bojja Srinivas v. State of Telangana And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bojja Srinivas v. State of Telangana 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

Mahankali Baskar, Khammam Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 5 Otrs.

Shaik Mannar Patel S/o Bashu Patel Vs The State of Telangana

Binay Mohta, Vs The State of Telangana

Penumati Eshwar, Warangal Dist. Vs the State of Telangana, Rep. by Its P.P., Hyd

K.V.V. Prasada Rao, Hyd and 2 Othrs Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

M/s. Goldquest International Private Limited, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Principal