Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 243 (TS)

K. Mahipal Reddy v. State Of Telangana

2020-02-07

G.SRI DEVI

body2020
JUDGMENT G. Sri Devi, J. - This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') is filed by the revision petitioner/accused aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 04.12.2017, passed in Crl.A.No.463 of 2014 by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2. The learned I Special Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, vide its Judgment, dated 09.06.2014, in New C.C.No.1321 of 2011 found the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- towards compensation to the 2nd respondent-complainant. On appeal in Crl.A.No.463 of 2014, the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, confirmed the Judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the revision petitioner preferred the present criminal revision case. 3. This Court, while admitting the revision case, vide order, dated 02.04.2018, directed the revision petitioner to deposit 50% of the compensation amount, as awarded by the trail Court, to the credit of New C.C.No.1321 of 2011 on the file of learned I Special Magistrate at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the revision petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- before the Ranga Reddy District Judicial Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative Society. 4. During pendency of the Criminal Revision Case, the 2nd respondent - complainant filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 seeking to permit the petitioner/accused and 2nd respondent to compound the offence in the aforesaid revision case. Along with the petition, the 2nd respondent-complainant also filed Joint Memo, duly signed by both the parties and their counsel, wherein it is stated that the 2nd respondent-complainant compromised the matter with the revision petitioner/accused and petitioner/accused has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards full and final settlement to the 2nd respondent-complainant. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused paid total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the 2nd respondentcomplainant i.e., Rs. 8,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No.1887, dated 07.02.2020, drawn on HDFC Bank, Suncity Branch, Hyderabad, and cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- today i.e, at the time of recording compromise. The 2nd respondent-complainant has acknowledged to have received the total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused paid total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the 2nd respondentcomplainant i.e., Rs. 8,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No.1887, dated 07.02.2020, drawn on HDFC Bank, Suncity Branch, Hyderabad, and cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- today i.e, at the time of recording compromise. The 2nd respondent-complainant has acknowledged to have received the total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 5. Today both parties are present in-person and they are identified by their respective counsel. Both parties produced photographs and Aadhar Cards in proof of their identity. This Court, when examined, both the parties have stated that at the instance of the elders, they have settled the matter out of the Court and the 2nd respondent-complainant acknowledged to have received Rs. 10,00,000/- and he has no objection for setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused. 6. In view of compromise, a prayer has been made to permit the parties to compound the offences and allowed the revision petition by setting aside the Judgment passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court. Further, a prayer has been made by the revision petitioner/accused that since the revision petitioner/accused has already paid total amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent/complainant towards full and final settlement, the revision petitioner/accused may be permitted to withdraw Rs. 5,50,000/-, which has been duly deposited by him in the light of order, dated 02.04.2018, passed by this Court. 7. In the light of the prayer sought and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petitioner/accused is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 5,50,000/-, which he has paid pursuant to the order of this Court, on furnishing proper identity. 8. In the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the Joint Compromise filed by both the parties is recorded and I.A.No.1 of 2020 is ordered. 9. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in terms of compromise, setting aside the judgments dated 09.06.2014 and 04.12.2014 passed in New C.C.No.1321 of 2011 on the file of I Special Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, and in Crl.A.No.463 of 2014 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, respectively and the revision petitioner/ accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, both parties are directed to deposit an amount of Rs. However, both parties are directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, and Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) before Telangana High Court Advocates' Association, Hyderabad, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.