Allowed

D.Ramakrishna Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Mar 2024CRLRC/519/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed I.A. No.1 of 2024 filed in Criminal Revision Case No.519 of 2019 against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Compounding the crime arising from cheque dishonour, the court quashed the criminal proceedings as the matter was compromised and settlement payments had been made by February 2024.

What did the court decide?

Compounding of crime in C.C. No.285 of 2015 and quashing of proceedings in the present criminal revision.

D.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Corruption | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THL STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WE?IIEIDAX TWO THOUSAND THE SIXTH AND TWENTY FOU}I-' DAY OF MARCH'

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

l.A.NO 1t2o2i IN/AND

¶6

CRIMINALREVlstoN cASE NO:5190F 2019

¶7

Revision fired under section 397 and 401 0f cr.p.c against the judoment dated 01'05.20'19 in crr.Appear No.539;i1016 # tn" Rt" of the lltAooitionar Metropotitan sessions luai!, Hyoera;J;"-r;;;; the judgment passed bv the s o"iJ'ojliru.zoro Speciat Masistrate in c.c.N-o.iad "izit

¶8

Between:

¶9

D.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. D. Sathi No. 7, Venkata Satya Nilamyam, S.p.

¶10

Reddy,Age. 40 years, Ooc. Business, R/o. plot Road, Tirmulgherry, SecunderaO"O _'SOO bii.' ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSE6

¶11

AND

¶12

The state of rerangana, Rep by its pubric prosecutor High court for the stare of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

Pogaku Veeresham, S/o. late p.pentaiah, Age. 63 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Ptot No. 7/'t, Amarjyothi Cotony, Nil8",;;;ii,-s."rno"r"u.a. ...RESPON DENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.

¶14

IANo:2OF 2019

¶15

Petition under section 1s1..cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the__affidavit fited. in supporr of. the p.fii#i; i;;eh Court may be pteased to l *ff:i{lfi^{udsmentpassed} bv rhe^ffi "ii.tr Hoip^{jl,s #ffi} "lji. t,.],,,+ful;"-ffi 9C^{No. 286o12015, dated 03.06.20i6.} F^ { -Sp-"ci"r^{rrlag istiai.,eii" r} "?ii ",I,J:r[k, ; IANO:1OF 2O24

¶16

Between

¶17

Pogaku Veeresham, S/o. late p.pentaiah, Age. 63 years, Occ. Business, R/o. plot No.7/1, Amarjyothi Cotony, ffew Ao;npaf f yi S"-"-rt"r"O"A. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2 /COMPLAINANT.

rll

AND

1 D.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. D. Sathi Reddy, Age.40 years, Occ. Business,

¶22

R/o. Plot No. 7, Venkata Satya Nilamyam, S.P. Road, Tirmulgherry, Secunderabad - 500 015.

¶23

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶24

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶25

.... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.l

¶26

(Respondent no. 2 is not necessary pafi)

¶27

Petition^{under Section'151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to compromise the matter by recording the compromise .

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent.l: ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent.2: SRI VENKATESH DESHPANDE

¶29

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

'A,Fl

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

¶34

I.A.No.1 of2024 itlar.d CRIMINAL^{REVISIONCASE No.S 19oF 2()19}

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

The present^{CriminalRevisionCase is filed by the} revision^{petitioner/appellant/accused assailing ttre} judgment dated 01.05 '2019^{inCrl'A'No'S39of2016'} passed by the learned^{III Additional MetropolitanSessions} Judge, Hyderabad,^{confrrming thejudgment dated} 03.06.2016^{in C.C.No.285 of 2015 passedby the learned} X Special^{Magistrate, Pioneer House,Errarlitanzil'} Hyderabad,^{for the offence punishable under Section138} of Negotiable^{InstrumentsAct, 1881 '}

¶37

2 Heard learned^{counsel for the revision petitioner'} Mr. Vizarath Ali,^{Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the} respondent-State^{and learned counselfor R2-Defacto} complainant.

¶38

The brief facts^{of the caseare that in order to meet his} personal needs, the^{revisionpetitioner/accusedobtaineda sum} of Rs.5,O0,0O0/-^{(Rupeesfrve lakhs only) towardshandl'oan}

¶39

from R2/complainant and for repayment of the^{said amount,} the revision petitioner/accused issued a cheque^bearing No.623484, dated 23.O1.2OL3, for a sum of^{Rs.5,00,OO0/-} (Rupees five lakhs only) drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Hyderabad. Respondent No.2/complainant^presented tle^said cheque in his bank for encashmeht and the sarne^was dishonoured by the Bank vide Memo dated^{14.02.2013with an} endorsement "Drawers Signature differs". On receipt^of statutory notice dated 2O.O2.2O13 demanding repaJfinent^{of the} amount covered under the said cheque, the revision petitioner/ accused replied the same with all false and baseless allegations. After waiting for the statutory^period, a complaint has been lodged by respondent No.2/complainant in C.C.No.285 of 2015 against revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act") and the sarne was allowed by the learned X Special Magistrate, Errarlraril, Hyderabad vide Judgment dated 03.06.2016 convicting ttre revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.7,2O,0O0/- (Rupees seven lakhs twenty thousand only), in default of paSrment of fine, the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for

¶40

¶41

(] Y

¶42

a period of six months and also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Out of fine amount paid, a sum of Rs.7,OO,OO0/- awarded to the complainant under Section 357(1Xb) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal and the sarne was dismissed vide Judgment dated O1.05.2019 in Crl.A.No.S39 of 2O16 passed by the leamed III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused has frled tJ.e present Criminal Revision Case.

¶43

Before the trial Court, the respondent No.2/complainant was examined as P.W. I and marked Exs-Pl to P7. In defense, the peLitioner/accused himself was examined as DWl, besides examining DW2-M.S. Christopher, and marked documents Ex.Dl to D3.

¶44

The learned trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence available on record, both oral and documentar5r, arrived at a conclusion that R2/complainant has successfully proved the guilt of the petitioner/accused beyond all reasonable doubt and, as such, convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of tJ:e Negotiable Instrument-sy'ct and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.7,2O-O0O//'

"rE€-

(Rupees seven lakhs twenty thousand only), in default of payment of fine, directed the petitioner/accused &as to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. It is further directed that out of fine amount paid, a sum of Rs.7,0O,O0O/_ shall be awarded to the complainant under Section 357(l)(b) of Cr.P.C.

¶50

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner/accused preferred Crl.A.No.539 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the appellate Court after re-appreciating the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated O1.O5.2019 in Crl.A.No.539 of 2016.

¶51

7 ' Aggrieved by the findings of bottr the courts below, the petitioner has Iiled the present criminal Revision case contending that both the Courts below erroneously found the revision petitioner/accused guilt5r of the offence a-lleged without

¶52

appreciaLing the evidence available on record in a right perspective and without there being any legally enforceable debt.

¶53

, I

¶54

It is submitted by^{learned counselfor the; respective} parties that during pendency of^{the present} Criminal^Revision Case, both the^{parties have compromised the matterand the} settlement amount has^{already been paid and by filinga Memo} vide USR No.2O774 of^{2024, dated 27.O2.2O24,learned counsel} for the revision petitioner^{submits tj'rat as per the direction} dated 15.O2.2O24^{passedby this Court, I.A.No-Lof 2O24l:.as} been filed to^permit the^{petitionerto compromise the matter} along with a Joint^{Memo of Compromisestating that a sum of} Rs.25,O0O/-^{(Rupeestwenty five thousand only) has been paid} to the credit of^{Telangana High Court Advocate's Association} and an amount of^{Rs.25,OOO/- (Rupeestwenty hve thousand} only) has been^{paid to the creditof Telangana High Court Iegal} Services Committee, on^{27.O2.2O24intotal Rs.5O'O00/-} (Rupees lifty thousand only) and^{since the matter has been} compromised in^{C.C.No.285of 2015 on the lile of X Special} Magistrate, Erramanzil,^{Hyderabad,seeks toquashthe} proceedings against the revision^{petitioner/accused'}

¶55

g. Learned counsel for^{respondentNo.2/complainantand} learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutor takes no objectionto the} sarne.

¶56

In view of the above made submissions, the I.A.No.l of 2024 is allowed, crime in C.C.No.2gS of 2015 on the lile of X Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad is compounded arrd tJre proceedings against the revision petitioner/accused in the present revision is hereby quashed.

¶57

I l. It is needless to mention that respondent

¶58

No.2/complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1,8O,0OO/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only) already deposited by the revision petitioner/accused by virtue of interim order dated 15.OS.2019 passed by this Court vide D.D.No.O0355l, dated tO.06.2olg of IDBI Bank to the credit of C.C.No.285 of 2015 after obtaining permission from the learned X Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad .

¶59

Miscellarreous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶60

closed.

¶61

sD/- T SRliilvAs DEPUTY REG //TRUE COPYII

¶62

SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To,

¶64

i, ii= ur'**'tmqrygg5lil;g*, 4. One CC to SRt VENKA 5. Two CCs to the ASST i a+lvoeraor u |etanggra,

r," sa,e^:.i:i

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/03/2024

ORDER

..<br>,;1 .\t
0 i rirr i."ll
i, '
u .;..
:'
. ..,,,,...,
.._:-

¶72

|.A.NO. 1o/F 2024 IN/AND

¶73

GRLRC.No.S19 of 20i9

¶74

ALLOWNG 1.A.1124 IAI/AND CRJi|INAL R.C.

¶75

?-1
2 ,i

D.Ramakrishna Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ramakrishna Reddy 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

Mr. Pallati Narsimhulu Vs Smt. v. Aruna., I.A.S.

Jaspal Singh Sachdeva Vs Master Harbhajan Singh Sachdeva and 2 Others

K.Issac Vs a.Ashok Kumar

Amboji Buddaiah Vs Yede Kamalakar Rao

T.Gangadhar Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Pp and Another

Bh. Raja Skehar Prasad Vs the State of Ap., Rep.by Its P.P and Anothers