Telangana High Court
Madiraju Vijaya Kumar vs The State Of A.P. Another on 11 February, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
I.A.No. 1 of 2022
In/and
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.444 of 2008
ORDER:
1) Vide judgment, dated 20.09.2007 in C.C. 866 of 2003, the IV
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal found the
revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly convicted him
for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in
default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months with a
further direction to pay the cheque amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the
complainant. On appeal being filed, the II Additional Sessions
Judge at Warangal vide judgment, dated 17.03.2008 partly allowed
the appeal being Crl.A. No. 82 of 2007, confirming the conviction
and sentence recorded by the trial Court, but however, set aside
the direction as to the payment of cheque amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs.
Hence, the present revision by the petitioner.
2) During pendency of the Criminal Revision, I.A.No.1 of 2022
came to be filed by the second respondent/complainant to record
the compromise. Along with the petition, a joint memo which is
signed by the parties and their counsel, photographs of the parties
and Photostat copies of their Aadhar Cards came to be filed. It is
stated in the affidavit that due to the intervention of elders and
well wishers, the parties have settled their disputes long back and
the revision petitioner paid the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the
second respondent by way of demand draft, dated 20.01.2022
drawn on Union Bank, Hyderabad.
3) Today, both the parties are present before this Court and they
were identified by their respective counsel. This Court, when
examined, the second respondent/complainant, submitted that out
of his own volition and without there being any pressure, he has
entered into compromise and he has no objection in case the
petitioner has been acquitted for the charge under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4) In Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal (H)1 the Apex Court
has categorically held that "while exercising power under Section
147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court can
proceed with the compromise even after recording the
conviction."
5) In view of the aforesaid principles of law, and in the light of
the compromise arrived at between the parties, the compromise
memo filed by both the parties is recorded and I.A.No.1 of 2022 is
ordered.
6) Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in terms of
compromise, setting aside the judgments dated 20.09.2007 and
17.03.2008 passed in C.C.No. 866 of 2003 on the file of the IV
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal and in
Crl.A.No. 82 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge at
Warangal, respectively and the revision petitioner/accused is
(2010) 5 SCC 663
acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, the revision petitioner
is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- before the
Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad and
the second respondent is directed to deposit an amount of
Rs.5,000/- before the Telangana High Court Bar Association, within
a period of two weeks from today.
7) Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
________________
JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
11.02.2022
tsr
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
I.A.No.1 of 2022
In/and
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 444 of 2008
Dated: 11.02.2022
tsr
