IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 09 OF 2022

ALONG WITH IA NOS: 2 AND 3 OF 2022

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C against the Judgment in Crl.Appeal No.115 of 2016 dated 09/12/2021 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs / STs (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad preferred against the Order in CC No.527 of 2013 dated 20/10/2016 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad.

Between:

Gopal Madhukar, S/o.Bhumaiah, aged 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.7-7-58/1, Opp: to Sindoor Matching Center, Kumargally, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. ...PETITIONER/ ACCUSED

AND

• 1. K.Shiva Kumar, S/o.Lingoji, aged 37 years, Occ: Photo Studio Business, R/o.Padmalaya Studio, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. ...COMPLAINANT/ RESPONDENT
• 2. The State of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana ....Respondent

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Judgment of the Special Judge for the Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad in Crl.Appeal No.115 of 2016 dated 09/12/2021 preferred against the sentence and judgment dated 20/10/2016 passed by I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad in CC No.527/2013 and enlarge the petitioner on bail.

IA NO.2 OF 2022:

Between:

K.Shiva Kumar, S/o.Lingoji, aged 37 years, Occ: Photo Studio Business, R/o.Padmalaya Studio, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

...PETITIONER/ ACCUSED

AND

• 1. Gopal Madhukar, S/o.Bhumaiah, aged 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.7-7-58/1, Opp: to Sindoor Matching Center, Kumargally, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.
• 2. The State of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana ....Respondent/ Complainant

Petition under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C praying that for the reasons stated in the compromise petition, and joint memo, the High Court may be pleased to grant permission to record the compromise statement and setaside/ quash the judgment dated 20/10/2016 passed by I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad in CC No.527/2013 by acquitting the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

IA NO.3 OF 2022:

Petition under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C R/w. Section 147 of N.I.Act, praying that for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the High Court may be pleased<br>to permit the petitioner herein to enter into compromise with the Respondents/ Complainant and to record the compromise statement and setaside/ quash the judgment dated 20/10/2016 passed by I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad in CC No.527/2013 by acquitting the petitioner in the interest of justice.

This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kondadi<br>Ajay Kumar, advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri N.Srushman Reddy, advocate for the Respondent No.1.

The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.09 OF 2022 ALONG WITH I.A. Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2022 COMMON ORDER:

This revision is filed by the petitioner - appellant - accused challenging the judgment dated 09.12.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2016 by the learned Special Judge for trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes/the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act - cum - VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Nizamabad confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, vide judgment dated 20.10.2016 in C.C. No.527 of 2013 for the offence under Section -138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. After passing the aforesaid judgment, since the parties have entered into compromise, along with the said revision, respondent No.1 - complainant filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 to permit him to enter into compromise and to compound the offence by acquitting the accused.

3. Vide order dated 05.01.2022, this Court, after recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

Crl.R.C. No.09 of 2022

respondent No.1, directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, on or before 20.01.2022 for their identification and also directed the Secretary to submit a report by 20.01.2022. In compliance with the said order, the Secretary has submitted his report dated 07.01.2022.

4. In the report of the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, it is stated that in obedience of the orders dated 05.01.2022, the petitioner and respondent No.1 have appeared before him along with their respective counsel and on examination and verification of their particulars from their Aadhar Cards, they were tallied. Thus, the identification of both the parties has been established.

5. The parties herein have filed a joint memo of compromise stating that at the intervention of the elders, they have settled the disputes between them amicably. Pursuant to the said settlement, the petitioner - accused has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.11,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only) to respondent No.1 towards full and final settlement as against the cheque amount of Rs.21,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Only) and respondent No.1 has agreed to

$\mathcal{L}$

receive the same and that he has no objection to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate on the petitioner herein in the above C.C. and as confirmed by the appellate Court in the above Criminal Appeal. The said joint memo of compromise and the report of the Secretary are placed on record.

6. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.¹ held that in cases of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. The Court noted that majority of cheque bounce cases are being compromised by way of compounding, albeit during the later stages of litigation. This leads to arrears pending before the Courts. The Apex Court held that it would be desirable if the parties choose to compound the offence during earlier stages of litigation. Therefore, the Apex Court issued certain guidelines permitting the parties to compromise the matter and compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act which are extracted as follows:-

"(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:

$(2010)$ 5 SCC 663

$\mathfrak{Z}$

$K1$ Crl.R.C. No.09 of 2022

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount."

7. In the memorandum of compromise, it has been mentioned that respondent No.1 has received the amount of Rs.11,00,000/-(Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only) towards full and final settlement and that

t i

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

8. [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 - ⁱ3 8 of the Negotiable Instrurnents Act, I ⁸⁸I 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:

) \ SBIN0020070, MICR No. 500004057) within ten (10) days from

today, and file proof of the same into the Registry.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

the revision shall stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

Sd/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

To

• 1. The Special Judge for the Trial of the cases under SCs/ STs (POA) Act-cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad. (with joint memo)
• 2. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. (with joint memo) 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor (TG), High Court for the State of Telangana,
• Hyderabad (OUT)
• One CC to Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) One CC to Sri N.Srushman Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)
• 6. Two CD Copies
• 7. One Spare Copy (along with a copy of Joint memo of compromise) Ki.

Cost Memo:

Note: Amount paid by M/s. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner towards imposed by cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as directed by this Hon'ble Court order dated 08/03/2022 in favour of Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c.No.52188926279 State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch, & 20070 IFSC Code SBIN0020070 MICR No.500004057 and filed memo vide proof of compliance USR No.27179 of 2022 dated 25/03/2022

HIGH COURT DATED:08/0312022

COMMON ORDER

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

ALLOWING THE CRL.R.C.

u

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

BETWEEN:

GSSALE

Gopal Madhukar S/o Bhumaiah, Age: 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 7-7-58/1, Opp: to Sindoor Matching center, Kumargally, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. ...Petitioner/Accused

OF 2022

OF 2022

AND

1. K.Shiva Kumar S/o Lingoji, Age: 37 years, Occ: Photo Studio Business, R/o Padmalaya Studio, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

2. The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangna.

.....Respondents/Complainant

JOINT MEMO

May it please your lordship,

It is to submit that the allegation in the complaint is that on $1.$ 28.10.2011 Accused has taken an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- from the complainant by issuing a cheque bearing No.030052 dated: 28.02.2013 in favour of complainant drawn of UTI Bank Nizamabad Branch for an amount of Rs.21 Lakhs and on presenting it, the same was returned un paid with a return memo for the reason Account Closed.

It is submitted that the $1^{\ensuremath{\text{st}}}$ Respondent filed a complaint $2.$ against Petitioner herein before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and the same was registered a C.C.No.527/2013 and the court vide judgment dated 20-10-2016 convicted and sentenced

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.

/

\**

3. 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.

4. 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.

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.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise statement and setaside/quash the judgment dated 20-10-2016 passed by I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad in C.C.No.527/2013 by acquiting the petitioner in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Hence, this Joint Memo.

HYDERABAD DATE: 03.01.2022

Med

Petitioner

$\mathcal{L}$

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

Respondent

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}$