1 MRK, J Crl.P.No.1206 of 2024 APHC010098262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1206 OF 2024 Between: 1. SRI MAHESH GOVINDRAJ, S/o Govindraj Naidu @ kannayya aged about 46 years R/o D.No. 200/2, 3rd Main Road, Majid street, off begur road, Bommannahalli, Bangalore south Bangalore City Karnataka ...Petitioner AND 1. SRI CHINNIGALLA SEKHAR, S/o Bhakthudu, aged about 37 years. Proprietor Sri Vasavi Industries s.no. 198, 200, tadigotla village ck dinne village kadapa district r/o D.No 3/96, SC colony, chilamkur village and post Yerraguntla mandal kadapa District - 516289 2. The State of A P, Amaravathy, Reptd by its Public Prosecutor, AP High Court, Amaravathi Guntur district ...Respondents 2 MRK, J Crl.P.No.1206 of 2024 Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to quash the C.C.No.608/2022 on the file of the court of the Judicial magistrate of first class at kamalapuram of kadapa district against the complaint, given under s. 138, to-142 of the NI Act IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to, stay all further proceedings including the presence of the accused in the C.C.No. 608/2022 on the file of the court of the Judicial magistrate of first class at kamalapuram of kadapa district and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to record the compromise that the respondent no. 1 has no objection to close the C.C.No.608/2022 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, registered against the Petitioner by the Respondent No.1 and in the sequel this petitioner/accused has also got no objection to close the quash petition by this honourable court as settled court of court between both the 3 MRK, J Crl.P.No.1206 of 2024 parties to this quash petition, which is pending before this honourable court as CrI.P No. 1206/2024 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: S S BHATT Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: 4 MRK, J Crl.P.No.1206 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM IA No.1 OF 2026 in/and Criminal Petition No:1206 OF 2024 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri S. S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.V. Vijayaditya Reddy, learned counsel representing 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.608 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.608 of 2022. 4. As seen from the joint compromise memo, both parties settled their issues, out of Court and accordingly, respondent 5 MRK, J Crl.P.No.1206 of 2024 No.1 agreed to withdraw the complaint in C.C.No.608 of 2022 and he orally submitted that this petition may be allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.608 of 2022 and by acquitting the petitioner of the offence of the Act. 5. 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 accused. But, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeev Khandelwal vs. State of Maharashtra & Another 2 , penalty amount need not be collected from the accused, in view of the settlement between the parties and payment made by the accused. 6. 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 1 [(2010) 5 SCC 663] 2 [2025 LiveLaw SC 1103] 6 MRK, J Crl.P.No.1206 of 2024 both parties to settle the dispute and accordingly, this Court allowed the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2026 vide orders today. 7. In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2026 and Crl.P.No.1206 of 2024 are allowed, by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.608 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. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 19.08.2026 krk 7 MRK, J Crl.P.No.1206 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 91 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1206 OF 2024 krk