Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20109 (AP)

GUNTI JESU SWAROOP, v. THE STATE OF A.P., REP BY PP,., AND ANOTHER,

CRLRC/86/2011 · 2025-02-24

Y Lakshmana Rao

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010282642011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 86/2011 Between: Gunti Jesu Swaroop, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep By Pp And Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KODURU RAMA CHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. P NAGENDRA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: No representation for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 2. The revision was filed against the concurrent conviction for the alleged offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. As seen from the record, there is a Lok Adalat Award passed in Hyderabad organized by A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Central Act), wherein terms of compromise were arrived in between the petitioner and the 2 2nd respondent, in which, the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent as full and final settlement and the 2nd respondent agreed to receive the said amount by way of cash and the 2nd respondent has reported no claim against the revision petitioner and no objection to acquit the revisionist. The terms of compromise was signed by the petitioner/accused and the 2nd respondent along with signatures of their respective counsels in the Award and terms of compromise are appended. The award was signed by Judicial Officer and Members. 4. In view of the Award passed in the Lok Adalat, nothing remains in the revision. 5. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised and the revisionist is acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Consequently, the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.517 of 2004 on the file of the learned IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur and the Judgment in C.C.No.252 of 2004 on the file of the learned VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur are hereby set aside. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.02.2025 KNN