Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Ganesh General Stores , vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 14 July, 2025
1
APHC010404332010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
I.A.No.2 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 254/2010
Between:
1. SRI GANESH GENERAL STORES ,, REP BY IT'S PROPARITER,
DONTALA BALAKRISHNA, S/O. NARASIMHULU, AGED 26,
VINAYAKA TEMPLE, CONTONMENT, VIZIANAGARAM
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,HYDERABAD
2. M/S LAKSHMI PRIYANKA ENTERPRISES, REP BY ITS
PROPRIETRIX SMT. V.JANAKI, W/O. MOHANARAO, AGED 35
YEARS, BUSINESS, KOTHA AGRAHARAM, VIZIANAGARAM
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to file the Memorandum of Criminal
Revision Case aggrieved by the Judgment and sentence passed by the
learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram,
ram, dt.08.02.2010
in Crl.A.No.47
47 of 2006, confirming the judgment
udgment and sentence in C.C.No.
C.C.No.194
of 2004 in court of Additional Judicial Magist
Magistrate
ate of First Class, Vizianagaram
Sentencing the petitioner to undergo three months SI and fine of Rs.1,000/-
Rs.1,000/ in
default simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Se Section
ction 138 of
N.I. Act
IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 358 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
2
suspend the sentence passed in Cc.No.194 of 2004 on the file of the
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram as confirmed by
the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram in Crl.Appeal No.47 of
2006 and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending the above Criminal Revision
Case
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
permit the petitioner/complainant to compromise the case in CRL.RC.No.254
of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
record the compromise and dispose of CRL.RC.No.254 of 2010 before this
Hon’ble Court, as settled out of court and pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
grant the exemption from paying the compounding fees in CRL.RC.No.254 of
2010 before this Hon’ble Court, as the petitioner is not financially capable to
pay the compounding fees and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T V SRI DEVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:
1. I.A.No.2 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant, who is
the 2nd Respondent in the Criminal Revision, seeking disposal of the present
Revision Case in light of the terms and conditions of the compromise. The 1 st
Respondent is the Petitioner/Accused in the present Revision Case.
3
2. The complainant filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I.Act’), alleging that the
Accused, who purchased cement on credit by opening an account with the
complainant’s wholesale cement business in Vizianagaram, owed Rs.56,057/-.
Despite partial payments made from time to time, the Accused issued two
cheques–No.019308 dated 25.08.2003 for Rs.18,700/- and No.795214 dated
30.08.2003 for Rs.10,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank–to settle part of the debt.
These cheques were presented for collection through State Bank of India,
Vizianagaram, but were dishonored on 06.02.2004 due to “exceeds
arrangements.” A legal notice dated 19.02.2004 was issued demanding
payment, which the Accused received but failed to comply with.
3. After considering the material as well as evidence on record, the
learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram [for short,
“the Trial Court”] vide Judgment dated 14.03.2006 in C.C.No.194 of 2004,
convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of three (03) months. Additionally, the accused was directed to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one (01)
month, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
4. Aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 14.03.2006 in C.C.No.194 of 2004
passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant/Accused preferred an Appeal in
Crl.A.No.47 of 2006 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Vizianagaram (for short, “First Appellate Court”) challenging the
correctness of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. By judgment dated
08.02.2010, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, thereby
confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant/Accused
by the Trial Court. Pursuant to the impugned judgment, the Petitioner/Accused
preferred the present Revision.
5. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.
4
6. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Petitioner and the
2nd Respondent appeared in person before this Court and were identified by
their respective learned counsel. The terms and conditions of the compromise,
as set forth in the affidavit, were read over to the parties, who admitted the
same to be true and correct. The 2nd Respondent / complainant submitted that
she had received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- through bank transfer from the
Petitioner on 23.04.2025, and proof of payment was filed before this Court
through a memo bearing U.S.R.No.62562 of 2025, dated 27.06.2025.
7. In Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H1 , the Hon’ble Supreme
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.”
8. In accordance with the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, the Revision
Petitioner shall pay 15% of the Cheque amount towards the compounding fee.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused submits that the Petitioner has
1
(2010) 5 SCC 663
5
suffered loss in business, is currently unemployed, and is unable to pay the
full compounding fee. With great difficulty, he has paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the
complainant and requested the Court to determine a reduced compounding
fee. Considering the Petitioner’s financial capacity and submissions made, this
Court directs the Petitioner/Accused to pay a compounding fee of Rs.1,000/-
to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee. The Petitioner
has complied by remitting Rs.1,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing
No.631006, dated 14.07.2025, and the receipt has been placed before this
Court.
9. Pursuant to the compromise recorded in I.A.No.2 of 2025, it is stated
that both parties have resolved their differences by entered into a
Memorandum of compromise dated 23.04.2025. Accordingly, there is no
necessity to prosecute the Accused, and the Complainant has no objection to
close the case against the Accused.
10. Upon being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the compromise,
and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I.A.No.2 of 2025
is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by
setting aside the judgment dated 08.02.2010 in Crl.A.No.47 of 2010 on the file
of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, which had
confirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, dated 14.03.2006 in C.C.No.194 of
2004. Accordingly, the Petitioner/Accused is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 14.07.2025
SAK
6
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
I.A.No.2 of 2025
In/and
Criminal Revision Case No.254 OF 2010
DATE: 14.07.2025
SAK
[ad_1]
Source link