1 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2230 of 2010 Dated 10.03.2025 APHC010700502010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2230/2010 Between: Akula Ramakrishna, ...PETITIONER AND Andhavarapu Hari Prasad Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. A S C BOSE 3. - The Court made the following: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2230 of 2010 Dated 10.03.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2230 of 2010 ORDER: Sri Rama Krishna Akurathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, submit that there are elements of settlements of disputes between both the parties and urged to appoint a trained mediator for settling the dispute. 2. Accordingly, Sri B. Parameswara Rao, trained mediator has been appointed to mediate the issue and submit the report. In that regard, the Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee is directed to issue necessary proceedings and the matter is passed over. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing at 2.30 p.m., the learned trained mediator has submitted a mediator’s report stating that the matter is successfully compromised between the parties. The petitioner being the accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of NI. Act, paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- vide D.D.No.627626, dated 10.03.2025, drawn on State Bank of India (SBI) to the respondent No.1 towards full and final settlement of the dispute. The mediator’s report is recorded. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged to allow the revision case as compromised and acquit the revisionist by setting aside the judgment of the learned Appellate Court and also the learned Trial Court. The offence 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2230 of 2010 Dated 10.03.2025 punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, is compoundable as per the Section 147 of NI Act. 5. Learned counsel appearing on both sides voluntarily submitted that an amount of Rs.10,000/- may be payable to the mediator towards mediation fee, that amount will be shared equally by the petitioner and the respondent No.1. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the costs that is required to be imposed pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.1, it is needed to mention that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain2, gave certain directions to compound the offence sans payment of any costs as contemplated in Damodar’s (refereed supra) case, in appropriate cases. 7. In view of the above reasons, the judgment of the learned Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, dated 29.11.2010, and the judgment passed in C.C.No.44 of 2005, dated 20.07.2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, are set aside. 1 (2010) 5 SCC 663 2 (2014) 10 SCC 690 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2230 of 2010 Dated 10.03.2025 8. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 10.03.2025 CVD