APHC010076862011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2025 in/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 747 OF 2011 Between: 1. G.R.MOHAN @ MOHAN RAO, S/O. DAVID RAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PRINCIPAL, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, R/O. SANTHINAGAR, NUZVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KONERU SATYANARAYANA, S/O. VISWANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA. 2. STATE OF A P, REPT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,HYDREBAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Crl.R.C. before this Hon'ble Court against the judgment in Crl.A.No. 1 of 2008 dated 22-03-2011 on the file of the Court of the XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Vijayawada in confirming the judgment made in C.C.No. 994 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada dated 12-01-2007. IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP 1118 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 2 enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the execution of the sentence made in judgment Crl.A.No. 1 of 2008 dated 22-03-2011 on the file of the Court of the XIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Vijayawada in confirming the judgment made in C.C.No. 994 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the I Addl. Chief Metrpolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada dated 12-01-2007 pending dispsoal of the main Crl.R.C. 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 to permit the petitioner and respondent NO.1 to compromise the Crl.RC.No. 747 of 2011 and to allow the Criminal Revision by compounding the offence against the Petitioner and Respondent 1 herein in CC.No.994 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the I Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in the interest of justice and 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 to cancel the Bailable warrant of arrest issued on 22.8.2025 against the Petitioner/Accused in the interest of Justice and equity 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 to compound the offence against the Accused in CC.No.994 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and consequently this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to acquit the Accused in CC.No.994 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and allow the Criminal Revision Petition, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRI S. SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRI K. ASAD AHAMED 2. SRI K. SANDEEP, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 COMMON ORDER 1. I.A.No.1 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking to permit the petitioner/accused and the respondent No.1 to compromise and to allow the present Criminal Revision Case by compounding the offence against the petitioner in C.C.No.994 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. I.A.No.02 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to cancel the Bailable Warrant of arrest issued on 22.08.2025 against the petitioner/accused. 3. I.A.No.3 of 2025 has been filed, seeking to dispose of the present Revision Case in light of the terms and conditions of the compromise and consequently acquit the accused in C.C.No.994 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and allow the Criminal Revision Case. 4. The de facto complainant, who is the 1st respondent, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that on 04.04.2005, the accused borrowed Rs.4,00,000/-, agreeing to repay it with 24% annual interest on demand, and executed a promissory note as collateral. Despite repeated demands, the accused issued a cheque dated 02.07.2005 for Rs.4,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Nuzvid Branch, acknowledging part payment of the debt. The cheque was presented the same day but was dishonoured with the remark "Account Closed" as per the bank memo dated 05.07.2005, which was communicated to the complainant on 06.07.2005. A statutory notice demanding payment was sent via registered post on 25.07.2005. While the accused received the notice sent under certificate of posting, he evaded the registered notice, which was returned with the endorsement "not claimed”. 4 5. After considering the material as well as evidence on record, the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada [for short, “the Trial Court”] vide Judgment dated 12.12.2007 in C.C.No.994 of 2005, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs.80,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three (3) months, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Further directed that if the fine amount of Rs.80,000/-, is realized, out of it Rs.75,000/- is awarded as compensation to the complainant as per Section 357(1)of Cr.P.C. 6. Aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 12.12.2007 in C.C.No.994 of 2005 passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant/Accused preferred an Appeal in Crl.A.No.1 of 2008 on the file of learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Vijayawada (for short, “the 1st Appellate Court”) challenging the correctness of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. By judgment dated 22.03.2011, the learned 1st 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. 7. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record. 8. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioner/accused and the 1st Respondent/Complainant appeared in person and were identified by their respective counsel. The terms of the compromise, as detailed in the affidavit, were read out and acknowledged as true and correct by all parties. As per the Joint Memo, the complainant stated that the matter has been amicably settled out of court, and the full cheque amount has been paid, and he has no objection to allow the present revision. 5 9. The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only), as directed, towards compounding fee to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati through Demand Draft No. 631335, dated 19.09.2025, and the receipt has been submitted to the Court. 10. Pursuant to the compromise recorded in I.A.No.03 of 2025, it is stated that both parties have resolved their differences by entered 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. 11. Upon being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the compromise, and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025, are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the judgment dated 22.03.2011 in Crl.A.No.1 of 2008 on the file of learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Vijayawada, which had confirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, dated 12.01.2007 in C.C.No.994 of 2005. Accordingly, the Petitioner/Accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. Interim orders passed earlier, if any, shall stand vacated and consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 19.09.2025 MS 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 In/and Criminal Revision Case No.747 OF 2011 DATE: 19.09.2025 MS