1 SUN, J Crl.P.No.8564 of 2023 APHC010554942023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8564/2023 Between: 1. SRI SATYA NARAYANA BHASKARAN, S/O BHASKARAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O NO. 439, 8TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE CITY KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. SRI R V NARAYANA REDDY, S/O RAMI REDDY AGED NOT KNOWN PROPRIETOR OF R.V.N.R TRANSPORT, D.NO. 13/416, SOCIETY COLONY, KAMALAPURAM TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT - 516289 2. THE STATE OF A P, AMARAVATHY, REPTD BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AP HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHY GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. S S BHATT Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. C PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following: 2 SUN, J Crl.P.No.8564 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8564 OF 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri S. S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner and respondent No.1 who are accused and complainant before the trial Court in C.C.No.249 of 2022 are also present and heard them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a petition in I.A.No.1 of 2026 along with joint compromise memo, seeking permission to settle the matter and acquit the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.249 of 2022. As seen from the joint compromise memo, both parties settled their issues, out of Court and accordingly, respondent No.1 agreed to withdraw the complaint in C.C.No.249 of 2022 and he orally submitted that this petition may be allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.249 of 2022 and by acquitting the petitioner of the offence of the Act. 4. In this regard, it is to be noted that as per the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal1, even at the stage of appeal or revision, the case under Section 138 of the Act can be compromised and to that effect permission may be given to both parties and at the same time, depending on the stage of the case, penalty amount is to be collected from the 1 [(2010) 5 SCC 663] 3 SUN, J Crl.P.No.8564 of 2023 accused. But, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeev Khandelwal vs. State of Maharashtra & Another2, penalty amount need not be collected from the accused, in view of the settlement between the parties and payment made by the accused. 5. In the given facts and circumstances and having given thoughtful consideration to the aforementioned principles, this Court came to conclusion that permission may be accorded to both parties to settle the dispute and accordingly, this Court allowed the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2026 vide orders today. 6. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed, by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.249 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, Kadapa District and consequently, acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith and also serve a copy on the learned counsel on record, within one week. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ___________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM,J Date: 18.08.2026 Vns 2 [2025 LiveLaw SC 1103]