High Court for State of TelanganaCRLRC/1534/2014allowed no costs

Konda Srinivasulu, Guntur Dt. v. State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Hyd And ANR

2017-12-07A.Shankar Narayana4 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL R.C. M.P. No.5086 OF OF 2017 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1534 OF 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT:

The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla, convicted the revision petitioner - accused viz., Konda Srinivasulu, under Section 255 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code'), in C.C. No.253 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six

(6) months and also to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation to respondent No.2 herein - complainant viz., Kancharla Venkata Vijayalakshmi Kumari, under Section 357 of the Code, and, in default, directed to recover the same in accordance with law, by the judgment dated 30.06.2011.

2. When the revision petitioner carried the matter to the lower appellate Court i.e., the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur, by the judgment, dated 08.04.2013, it dismissed the appeal in Criminal Appeal No.218 of 2011, confirming the conviction recorded and also maintaining the sentence of imprisonment inflicted by the learned Magistrate along with the

compensation awarded. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.

3. However, Criminal R.C. M.P. No.5086 of 2017 is filed by the complainant (respondent No.2) praying to permit her to compromise the matter with the revision petitioner by compounding the offence as they settled the matter by entering into compromise and accordingly requests to acquit the revision petitioner in view of the compromise by setting side the conviction and sentence imposed against him by the Courts below.

4. Sri Naresh Kumar Gundapu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner - accused, and Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant, would submit that they entered into compromise at the instance of their elders and wellwishers and settled the dispute by paying a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) to the complainant towards full and final settlement of the issue, and to that effect they have also filed a Joint Memo, signed by both parties as well as their counsel, stating that they have entered into settlement compromising the matter and, therefore, request to record the compromise and to allow the present revision and consequently, to set aside the conviction recorded including the sentence of imprisonment and the compensation awarded by the Courts below.

5. Both parties i.e., respondent No.2 - complainant viz., Smt. Kancharla Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi Kumari, and the revision petitioner - accused viz., Konda Srinivasulu are present along with their respective counsel, Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao and Sri Naresh Kumar Gundapu, and the parties are identified by their respective counsel. Even with reference to identity of the parties, they produced their "Aadhaar Cards" and the Court Officer verified their identity.

6. On being asked, the complainant and the revision petitioner report that they have compromised the matter by entering into the settlement as referred to above and, therefore, request to permit them to compromise the matter, record the compromise, compound the offence, and to allow the present revision by setting aside the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner by the Courts below.

7. Since both parties have affirmed the terms of the joint memo and request to record the compromise, and in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.1, since the revision petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) towards 15% of the cheque amount that being Rs.80,000/-, by way of costs to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Nyaya Seva Sadan, City Civil Court Buildings, Hyderabad, and filed a memo to that effect annexing 1 (2010) 5 SCC 663

the original receipt, dated 07.12.2017, Crl.R.C.M.P.5086 of 2017 is allowed recording the compromise and accordingly, the offence registered against the revision petitioner - accused is compounded.

8. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in terms of the compromise recorded by setting aside the conviction recorded by the trial Court as affirmed by the lower appellate Court including the sentence of imprisonment inflicted on the revision petitioner and the compensation awarded to the complainant, and consequently the revision petitioner is acquitted of the offence. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the revision petitioner shall stand cancelled.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the present revision case stand closed.

__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J December 7, 2017.