APHC010347692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 756/2024 Between: BOBBA AJAY KUMAR MUKARJI, S/O. VIJAY KUMAR BENARJEE, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 31-6-19, OPP- RAVINDRA BHARATHI SCHOOL, ASR STREET, MARUTHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA, PRESENT NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI, NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. P SAILAJA, W/O. RAMA MOHAN RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 72-4-1, OPP- CANARA BANK, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA, PRESENT NTR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MUTYALA SOBHANADRI NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B V ANJANEYULU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused, impugning the judgment dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.A.No.47 of 2021 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, which was passed 2 confirming the judgment dated 27.10.2021 passed in C.C.No.1120 of 2018 by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I.Act’). 2. Heard Sri M.Sobhanadri Naidu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri B.V.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 / Complainant. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 3. Both parties appeared before this Court and represented that they intend to compromise the matter. It is submitted by both parties that the cheque amount is of Rs.5,00,000/- and out of the same, the Revision Petitioner had already deposited Rs.1,00,000/- before the trial Court as directed by the Appellate Court. Respondent No.2 is also permitted to withdraw the said amount, along with interest, if any accrued thereon. Learned counsel representing both sides would submit that, as per the terms of the compromise, the Revision Petitioner has paid the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to Respondent No.2 / Complainant. Costs of Rs.20,000/- are also paid by the Revision Petitioner to the A.P.State Legal Services Authority as directed by this Court. Respondent No.2 would submit that she has no objection to record the compromise and to acquit the Accused by allowing the Criminal Revision Case. 4. Considering the submissions, and in view of the amicable settlement of the matter and in the interests of justice, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the concurrent judgments dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.A.No.47 of 2021 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and 3 Sessions Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, and dated 27.10.2021 passed in C.C.No.1120 of 2018 by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Revision Petitioner / Accused is acquitted from the present case. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:16.04.2026 Dinesh 4 THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:756 OF 2024 Dt.16.04.2026 Dinesh