APHC010114202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 389/2025 Between: 1.JAGARAPU LAXMINARAYANA, S/O. SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.22-2-87, GANNERUVEEDHI, BESIDES RAMAIAYAM TEMPLE, A.V.N.COLLAGE DOWN, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATHI. 2.SARADHI VENKATA GIRDHAR, S/O. VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GUNTAPALLI, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TANDASA RADHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KAKUMANU JOJI AMRUTHA RAJU 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are present. The remaining amount of Rs.40,000/- as admitted by the Petitioner/Accused has paid today to Respondent No.2/complainant. The promissory note which was handed over to the learned Mediator for safe custody is being handed over to Petitioner/Accused by the learned Mediator. 2. The Petitioner/Jagarapu Laxminarayana (Accused in C.C.No.602/2008) after perusal of the promissory note submits that, of course the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also raised, the promissory note contends signature in the name of the Petitioner, but the Petitioner contends that the signature doesn’t belong to him. The Petitioner apprehends that the promissory containing his signature is either being kept with the Respondent No.2 or with some of his follower or henchmen and gave the promissory note which contains the forged signature of the Petitioner and the Petitioner apprehends that the Respondent No.2, may at later point of time, would institute a Suit based on the promissory note earlier signed by the Petitioner and tendered to Respondent No.2. Be that as it may, this is a disputed fact, which cannot be gone into in this Criminal Revision Case. 3. Since both the parties settled their score in this case at the intervention of the learned Mediator and the learned Mediator has submitted the mediators report, the Petitioner has paid total Rs.1,15,000/- to Respondent No.2 and the case is settled before the learned Mediator. 3 4. Hence, the case is compromised between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 under Section 147 of ‘the N.I. Act’ read with Section 320(6) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ 5. In the result, the Criminal Revision case is disposed of as compromised, Petitioner is acquitted under Section 320(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The Judgment dated 01.05.2012 in Crl.A.No.59/2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam; the judgment dated 17.10.2011 in C.C.No.602/2008 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 08.09.2025 VTS