G.Jagannadha Sastry, v. R.Kapaleswara Rao,

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS CRL.R.C.M.P.N0.637 OF 2015 AND CRL.R.C.NO.1710 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Crl.R.C.M.P.No.637 of 2015 is filed by the complainant and the accused stating that they settled the matter out of Court and that the complainant received Rs.3,25,000/- out of Rs.3,27,000/- by way of bankers Cheque bearing No.079517, dated 28.06.2010 drawn on A.P. State Co-op. Bank Ltd., Hyderabad.

3.

The criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner-accused aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21.11.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.320 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2008 in C.C.No.279 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

4. The accused and the complainant present and their counsel identified them.

5. As per the expression of the Apex Court (3 Judges Bench) inDamodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babulal[1] guidelines are laid down in saying the compounding can be permitted at any stage, subject to application of the accused and subject to condition of deposit of costs either to legal services authority or other as the Court directs out of the cheque value specified i.e. up to 10% before the trial Court if not moved at the initial stage and up to 15% before the Court of Session or High Court and thereafter before the Apex Court up to 20% and at para 17 of the Judgment it was held as part of the guidelines that the concerned Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the special facts and

circumstances while recording reasons in writing for such variance of said guidelines.

Having regard to the above, by applying the prepositions to the present facts by imposing Rs.10,000/- towards costs to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, subject to that permitting for compounding.

6. Accordingly and since compliance is made the criminal revision case and Crl.M.P.No.637 of 2015 are disposed of by recording compromise, compounding the offence and as a sequel the conviction judgment of trial Court confirmed by the first appellate Court, set aside as compounded. Having regard to the above, warrants issued, if any, against the revision petitioner-accused by the 1st appellate Court or trial Court are hereby cancelled for the matter ended in compromise and nothing remained to enforce or execute.

7. Since the main revision is disposed of, all the miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal, if any shall stand closed. ________________________ ANIS, J 19.03.2015 kvrm THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

CRL.R.C.M.P.N0.637 OF 2015 AND CRL.R.C.NO.1710 OF 2008 DATE: 19.03.2015 kvrm

[1] (2010) 5 SCC 31