Pedada Suryanarayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 987 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 987 AP
Judgement Date : 6 February, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Pedada Suryanarayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 February, 2024

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                     I.A.No.2 of 2024
                         IN/AND
          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.981 OF 2023

COMMON ORDER:

1. I.A.No.2 of 2024 is filed by the defacto complainant, who is the

respondent in Criminal Revision, seeking to dispose of the present

Revision Case in view of the terms and conditions of the compromise.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she filed a private

complaint against the petitioner/accused, for the offence under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused borrowed an amount

of Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.04.2017 for his domestic purpose, agreeing to

repay the same with monthly interest at Rs.2/- per Rs.100/- on

demand to her or on her order; thereby the accused executed a

demand promissory note in favour of the complainant. In spite of

repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused did not pay

the amount and on 06.02.2018, the accused issued a cheque for

Rs.1,50,000/- bearing No.425691 drawn on Bank of India, Dondaparthi

Branch, Visakhapatnam. When the said cheque is presented by the

complainant for collection, the same is returned with an endorsement

"insufficient funds" vide return memo dated 08.02.2018.

3. After considering the material as well as evidence on record, the

learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways-cum-VI Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam [for short, "the trial Court"] vide

T.M.R.,J

Judgment dated 23.04.2019 in C.C.No.1679 of 2018 convicted the

accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of six (6) months and further directed to pay the cheque

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant under

Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. in default, the accused shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

4. Aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 23.04.2019 in C.C.No.1679

of 2018 passed by the trial Court, the appellant/accused preferred the

appeal vide Crl.A.No.223 of 2019 on the file of learned I Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, "1st appellate

Court") questioning the correctness of the Judgment passed by the

Trial Court. As per the Judgment dated 06.10.2023, the learned 1 st

appellate Court dismissed the said appeal by confirming the conviction

and sentence passed against the appellant/accused. Basing on the

impugned judgment, the petitioner/accused preferred the present

Revision.

5. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, both parties in

the Revision are present and they are identified by their learned

counsel. The terms and conditions of compromise mentioned in the

affidavit are read over to the parties and they are admitted as true and

T.M.R.,J

correct. In a decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed

Babalal H1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice.xxx

(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.

xxx

22. Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these Guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate's Court or a Court of Session, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority."

7. In view of the guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court in the above

decision, the Revision Petitioner has paid 15% of the Cheque amount

of Rs.22,500/- to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority,

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati by way of Demand Draft

(2010) 5 SCC 663

T.M.R.,J

bearing No.444767 dated 03.01.2024 towards compounding fee. A

receipt of the same is placed before this Court.

8. In pursuance of the said compromise made in I.A.No.2 of 2024,

it is stated that both parties have settled their differences by entered

into an Agreement/MOU on 13.12.2023 and there is no warranty to

prosecute the accused and the defacto complainant has no objection to