APHC010404332010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.N0.2 OF 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 254 OF 2010 Between: Sfi Ganesh General Stores, rep by it's Proprietor, Dontala Balakrishna, S/o.Narasimhulu, aged 26 Vizianagaram. Vinayaka Temple, Contonment, ...ACCUSED/PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati. M/s.Lakshmi Priyanka Enterprises, rep by its Proprietrix Smt.V.Janaki, W/o.Mohanarao, aged 35 years. Business Vizianagaram. 2. Kotha Agraharam, ...COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENTS Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.PC aggrieved by the Judgment and sentence, dated 08.02.2010 passed in Crl.A.No.47 of 2006, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, which was preferred against the Judgment and sentence, dated 14-03-2006, passed in CC.No.194 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 and lA NO: 2 OF 2025 (Common CT) Between: M/s.Lakshmi Priyanka Enterprises, rep by its Proprietrix Smt.V.Janaki, W/o.Mohana Ro, aged 60 years, R/o.D.No.4-8-2, Kotta Agraharam, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ...PETITIOINER/COMPLAINANT AND Sri Ganesh General Stores, rep by its Proprietor, Dontala Balakrishna, S/o.Narasimhulu, aged about 45, R/o.D.No.1-23-191, Mahanthi Street, Ward No.21, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN CRL.RC.N0.254 OF 2010 The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, High Court Buildings at Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Petition filed under Section 320 (2) of Cr.PC read with Section 359 (6) of BNSS, read with Section 147 of N.I.Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/complainant to compromise the case in CRL.RC.No.254 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition filed under Section 320 (2) of Cr.PC read with Section 359 (2) of BNSS, read with Section 147 of N.I.Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise and dispose of CRL.RC.No.254 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court, as settled out of Court. (*Joint Compromise Memo enclosed (vide separate sheet) lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS read with Section 482 of Cr.PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant the exemption from paying the compounding fees in CRL.RC.No.254 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court, as the petitioner is not financially capable to pay the compounding fees. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT T.V. SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN The Court made the following COMMON ORDER : 1 APHC010404332010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO l■A■No■2 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 254/2010 Between: 1.SRI GANESH GENERAL STORES ,, REP BY IT'S PROPARITER, DONTALA BALAKRISHNA, S/O. NARASIMHULU, AGED 26, VINAYAKA TEMPLE, CONTONMENT, VIZIANAGARAM ...PETITIONER AND 1 .THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,HYDERABAD 2. M/S LAKSHMI PRIYANKA ENTERPRISES, REP BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT. V.JANAKI, W/0. MOHANARAO, AGED 35 YEARS, BUSINESS, KOTHA AGRAHARAM, VIZIANAGARAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to file the Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the Judgment and sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, dt.08.02.2010 in Crl.A.No.47 of 2006, confirming the judgment and sentence in C.C.No.194 of 2004 in court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram Sentencing the petitioner to undergo three months SI and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 138 of N.l. Act lA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 358 OF 2010 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 2 suspend the sentence passed in Cc.No.194 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram as confirmed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram in CrI.Appeal No.47 of 2006 and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending the above Criminal Revision ■ Case lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/complainant to compromise the case in CRL.RC.No.254 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise and dispose of CRL.RC.No.254 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court, as settled out of court and pass lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant the exemption from paying the compounding fees in CRL.RC.No.254 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court, as the petitioner is not financially capable to pay the compounding fees and pass Counsel forth© Petitioner: 1.T VSRI DEVI Counsel forth© Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: ' 1. LA.No.2 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant, who is the 2^^^ Respondent in the Criminal Revision, seeking disposal of the present Revision Case in light of the terms and conditions of the compromise. The 1 Respondent is the Petitioner/Accused in the present Revision Case. St 3 ^ 2. The complainant filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I.Act’), alleging that the Accused, who purchased cement on credit by opening an account with the complainant’s wholesale cement business in Vizianagaram, owed Rs.56,057/-. Despite partial payments made from time to time, the Accused issued two cheques—No.019308 dated 25.08.2003 for Rs.18,700/- and No.795214 dated 30.08.2003 for Rs. 10,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank—to settle part of the debt. These cheques were presented for collection through State Bank of India, Vizianagaram, but were dishonored on 06.02.2004 due to “exceeds arrangements. A legal notice dated 19.02.2004 was issued demanding payment, which the Accused received but failed to comply with. After considering the material as well as evidence on record, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram [for short, “the Trial Court”] vide Judgment dated 14.03.2006 in C.C.No.194 of 2004, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. Additionally, the accused was directed to fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one (01) month, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 3. pay a 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 14.03.2006 in C.C.No.194 of 2004 passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant/Accused preferred an Appeal in Crl.A.No.47 of 2006 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram (for short First Appellate Court”) challenging the correctness of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. By judgment dated 08.02.2010, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant/Accused by the Trial Court. Pursuant to the impugned judgment, the Petitioner/Accused preferred the present Revision. 5. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record. 1 4 6. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Petitioner and the 2"“ Respondent appeared in person before this Court and were identified by ^ their respeotive learned counsel. The terms and conditions of the compromise, as set forth in the affidavit, were read over to the parties, who admitted the . same to be true and correct. The 2"" Respondent / complainant submitted that she had received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- through bank transfer from the Petitioner on 23.04.2025, and proof of payment was filed before this Court through a memo bearing U.S.R.No.62562 of 2025, dated 27.06.2025. 7. In Damodar S. Prabhu Court held that: vs. Sayed Babalal , the Hon’ble Supreme “21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It i/i/as submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice, xxx (c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. or pays xxx 22. Let It also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these Guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate's Court or a Court of Session, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Seivices Authority." 8. In accordance with the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, the Revision ■ Petitioner shall pay 15% of the Cheque amount towards the compounding fee. Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused submits that the Petitioner has (2010) 5 see 663 ' ‘ suffered loss in business, is currently unemployed, and is unable to pay the full compounding fee. With great difficulty, he has paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant and requested the Court to determine a reduced compounding ' fee. Considering the Petitioner’s financial capacity and submissions made, this Court directs the Petitioner/Accused to pay a compounding fee of Rs. 1,000/- to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee. The Petitioner has complied by remitting Rs. 1,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No.631006, dated 14.07.2025, and the receipt has been placed before this Court. 9. Pursuant to the compromise recorded in I.A.No.2 of 2025, it is stated that both parties have resolved their differences by entered into a Memorandum of compromise dated 23.04.2025. Accordingly, there is no necessity to prosecute the Accused, and the Complainant has no objection to close the case against the Accused. 10. Upon being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the compromise, and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I.A.No.2 of 2025 is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the judgment dated 08.02.2010 in Crl.A.No.47 of 2010 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, which had confirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, dated 14.03.2006 in C.C.No.194 of 2004. Accordingly, the Petitioner/Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand SDI- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The I Additional District Vizianagaram District. (With records if any) and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram District. 3. One CC to Smt T.V.Sri Devi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Doddaka Harsha Vardhan, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. Vizianagaram, at 7. Two CD Copies BSV TAC (*Joint Compromise Memo enclosed (vide separate sheet) % HIGH COURT DATED:14/07/2025 I COMMON ORDER I.A.No.2 of 2025 In/And 1 2 8 JUL 2025 O CRLRC NO. 254 OF 2010 coh I.A.NO.2 OF 2025 IS ALLOWED DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE w IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI CRL.RC. NO.254 OF2010 BETWEEN: Sri Ganesh General Stores, Rep. by its Proprietor, Dontaia Balakrishna S/o. Narasimhulu, Aged about 45 years R/o. D.No.1-23-191, Mahanthi Street, Ward No.21, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District .... Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, High Court Buildings at Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District. - 2. M/s. Lakshmi Priyanka Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietrix Srnt. V.Janaki W/o. Mohana Rao, Aged 60 years, R/o. D.No,4-8-2, Kotta Ao'aharam, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ....Respondents JOINT MEMO May it please your lordship. It is submitted that, the petitioner in CRL.Rc.No.254 of 2010 i.e., Mr. Dontaia Balakrishna, Proprietor of Ganesh General Stores and the complainant therein i.e., M/s. Lakshmi Priyanka Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietrix Smt. V.Janaki W/o. Mohanarao, have arrived at an amicable out of the court of settlement. Accordingly, the complainant Smt.V.Janaki has received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- through bank transfer from Mr. Dontaia Bala Krishna on 23.04.2025, and the proof of payment was filed before this Hon’ble Court through a memo vide URS.No.62562 of 2025 dt.27.06.2025. 1. JiJE !t is sucmitted that, in view of the aforementioned settlement, wi^h free will and consent the complainant Smt.V.Janaki has no objection for allowing the Criminal Revision Case in CRL.Rc.No.254 of 2G10 before this Hon’ble Court and she do not wish to pursue the matter any further in the interest of family harmony and peaceful living. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise and dispose of <5RC.RC.No.254 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Court, as settled out of court and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Hence, this Joint. Memo. Amaravati DATE; 1| .07.2025 'A .K \j Petitioner in CRL.Rc.No.254 of 2010 Respondent No.2 in CRL.Rc.No.254 of 2010 <1 Couns^ f jtitioner I Coi Bfor h ondent