APHC010269232019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3327]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 921/2019 Between:

Mulakula Srinivas ...PETITIONER AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. N SIVA REDDY

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.8.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.376 of 2017 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, whereby the conviction and sentence recorded as against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the judgment dated 10.8.2017 in C.C.No.313 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, were confirmed.

2. It is represented that both the parties have settled the dispute amicably out of the Court at the intervention of their elders and well wishers. In view of the settlement arrived between both the parties, they filed I.A. No.2 of 2024 seeking to permit them to compound the offence and to record the compromise.

3. It is stated by the complainant in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2 of 2024 that as per the advice of the well wishers and family elders of both sides, they compromised the matter. They further stated in the affidavit that there is no coercion, force or misrepresentation from anybody in giving the said affidavit or in compounding the present case and out of their free will and wish, they were giving the affidavit.

4. Today, when the case is called, both the parties are present before this Court. They produced their respective Aadhar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 identified both the parties in the open Court. This Court questioned the complainant with regard to compromise and he categorically stated to that extent that he has voluntarily entered into compromise with the petitioner herein.

5. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, there is no hindrance to record the compromise. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded in the judgment dated 10.8.2017 in C.C.No.313 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, as confirmed in judgment dated 19.8.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.376 of 2017 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, East Godavari district at Rajamahendravaram. The revision petitioner/accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and is accordingly acquitted of the same.

6. Accordingly, IA No.2 of 2024 and Criminal Revision Case No.921 of 2019 are allowed.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

____________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Dated: 02.01.2025 RD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY IA No.2 of 2024 in/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.921 of 2019 Dated: 02.01.2025 RD