APHC010457122011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.No.3 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 18/2011 Between: 1. MR. BALACHANDRA SEKHAR, E.G.DISTRICT, S/O. KONDAYYA GRB LOWER SECTION, PWD DEPARTMENT, ANNAMPALLI, MUMMIDAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S SRI HARI PRIYA AGENCIES E G DIST ANR REP BY P P HYD, AGSV SATYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. VENKATAPATHI RAJU R/O. JAGANNAICKPUR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD, (SHO, P.S., 1 TOWN KAKINADA, E.G.DISTRICT) ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 28 OF 2011 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 suspend the orders/judgment of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada in Crl.A.No.239 of 2008 by confirming the order of the III Addl. J.F.C.M., at Kakinada, in C.C.No. 108 of 2003 dated 01-08-2008 by recalling the NBW issued by the III Addl. J.F.C.M., at Kakinada, pending disposal of the revision and pass IA 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 may be pleased to recall the Non-Bailable warrant issued against the petitioner in CRL RC NO. 18 of 2011 Dated: 28.03.2025 on the file of tNs Honorable Court and to pass smay be pleased to recall the Non-Bailable warrant issued against the petitioner in CRL RC NO. 18 of 2011 Dated: 28.03.2025 on the file of this Honorable Court and to pass IA 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner to compromise the case in CC No. 108 of 2003 dated 01.08.2008 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada as confirmed in CRLA No. 239 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada dated 03.01.2011 in the interest of justice and pass IA 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner to compromise the above criminal revision case to be filed under Section 147 of NI Act in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 4 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 may be pleased to set aside the Judgment and conviction passed in CC No. 108 of 2003 dated 01.08.2008 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada which was confirmed in CRLA No. 239 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada dated 03.01.2011 by compounding the offence in terms of compromise in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. A VARALAKSHMI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.No.3 of 2025 In/And Criminal Revision Case No.18 of 2011 ORDER: I.A.No.3 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner/accused in the Criminal Revision, seeking disposal of the present Revision Case in light of the terms and conditions of the compromise. The 1st Respondent is the complainant in the present Revision Case. 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 prawn culture and kept a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as due. For the amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, the accused issued three cheques for Rs.49,000/-, Rs.49,000/- and Rs.42,000/- on 28.07.2002 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Kakinada Branch, towards full payment. The complainant presented all the cheques in Andhra Bank, Cinema road branch, Kakinada for collection and the same were returned due to “funds insufficient”. A legal notice was issued on 05.01.2003 demanding the payment, which the accused received but failed to comply with. 3. After considering the material as well as evidence on record, the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, [for short, “the Trial Court”] vide Judgment dated 01.08.2008 in C.C.No.108 of 2003, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months. Additionally, the accused was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, towards compensation under Section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 01.08.2008 in C.C.No.108 of 2003 passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant/Accused preferred an Appeal in Crl.A.No.239 of 2008 on the file of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada, (for short, “First Appellate Court”) challenging the correctness of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. By judgment dated 03.01.2011, 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. 6. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent appeared in person before this Court and were identified by their respective 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. As per the affidavit filed, the 1st Respondent/complainant submitted that they had received the amount from the Petitioner/accused. 7. In Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “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 was 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 or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. 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 1 (2010) 5 SCC 663 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 Services 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 suffered loss in business, is currently unemployed, and is unable to pay the full compounding fee. With great difficulty, he has paid the amount due 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.2,000/- to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee. The Petitioner has complied by remitting Rs.2,000/- by way of Bankers Cheque bearing No.631102, dated 28.07.2025, and the receipt has been placed before this Court. 9. Pursuant to the compromise recorded in I.A.No.3 of 2025, it is stated that both parties have resolved their differences by entering into a Memorandum of compromise. 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.3 of 2025 is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the judgment dated 03.01.2011, in Crl.A.No.239 of 2008 on the file of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada, which had confirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, dated 01.08.2008 in C.C.No.108 of 2003. 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 closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 28.07.2025 M K K THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.No.3 of 2025 In/and Criminal Revision Case No.18 of 2011 DATE: 28.07.2025 M K K