APHC010419162017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1359/2017 Between: 1. MOVVALA VEKATA SRINIVASA RAO, GUNTUR DIST., S/O. GURUMURTHY, R/O. BALAJIRAOPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY P P ANOTHER, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD 2. DARSI VENKATA LAKSHMI GANAPATHI RAO, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, R/O. MAJETIVARI STREET, BOSE ROAD, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 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 prefer this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case, being aggrieved by the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.250/2015, dated 15.05.2017, on the file of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, While Partly confirming the Judgment in CC No.303/2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, dated 22.05.2015. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 2196 OF 2017 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 enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, by suspending the execution of sentence made in Crl.A.No.250/2015, dated 15.05.2017, on the file of XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tenali in partly conforming the sentence in CC No. 303/2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, dated 22.05.2015, Pending disposal of the Criminal Revision case and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017 (CRLRCMP 15693 OF 2017) 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 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 permit the Petitioner/2nd Respondent to compound the offence with the 1st Respondent/Accused here in Crl.R.C.No.1359 of 2017, pending disposal of the main CrI.Revision Case, 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 Pleased to record compromise and acquit the 1st Respondent/Accused by allowing the Crl.R.C.No.1359 of 2017 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. MARELLA RADHA 1. I.A.No.1 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant, who is the 2nd Respondent 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 Petitioner/Accused in the present Revision Case. 2. I.A.No.2 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner/Complainant, who is the 2nd respondent in the Criminal Revision, to record the compromise and acquit the 1st respondent/accused by allowing this Criminal Revision Case. 3. The complainant filed a complaint under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I.Act’), by contending that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 10.03.2011 to meet his family expenses and on the even date accused executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest @18% per annum. Subsequently on repeated demands accused admitting his liability issued cheque bearing No.983271 dated 03.08.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Ramalingeswarapet Branch, Tenali, representing that he had sufficient funds in his account and believing the representation made by the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque in State Bank of Hyderabad, Tenali Branch for collection. Subsequently, the complainant received a cheque return memo on 06.9.2012 from his banker stating therein that the cheque issued by the accused is dishonoured due to ‘insufficient funds’ in the account of the accused. Then the complainant issued legal notice dated 08.09.2012 to the accused demanding payment of the dishonoured cheque amount within 15 days from that date. Though the notice has been received, the accused did not repay any amount knowing fully well that insufficient funds in his account with a view to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. 4. After considering the material as well as evidence on record, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, [for short, “the Trial Court”] vide Judgment dated 22.05.2015 in C.C.No.303 of 2012, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight (08) months and is ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of one (01) month simple imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 5. Aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 22.05.2015 in C.C.No.303 of 2012 passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant/Accused preferred an Appeal in Crl.A.No.250 of 2015 on the file of learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, Tenali (for short, “First Appellate Court”) challenging the correctness of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. By judgment dated 15.05.2017, the learned First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the sentence for a period of six (06) months and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Pursuant to the impugned judgment, the Petitioner/Accused preferred the present Revision. 6. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record. 7. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the Petitioner and the 2nd 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. The 2nd Respondent / complainant submitted that she had received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- through bank transfer from the Petitioner on 18.08.2025, and proof of payment was filed before this Court. 8. 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 1 (2010) 5 SCC 663 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 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.” 9. 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 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.2,000/- to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee. The Petitioner has complied by remitting Rs.2,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No.380, dated 05.01.2026, and the receipt has been placed before this Court. 10. 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 18.08.2025. 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.No.2 of 2025 is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the judgment dated 15.03.2017 in Crl.A.No.250 of 2015 on the file of learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, Tenali, which had confirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, dated 22.05.2015 in C.C.No.303 of 2015. 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: 05.01.2026 M K K