IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.473, 620, 621, 622, 623, 626, 635 of 2023 DATE: 11.02.2026 Crl.R.C.No.473 of 2023 BETWEEN:

Achaini Sri Hari …..petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another.

…..Respondents

COMMON ORDER

Since the issue and the parties involved in all the cases are one and the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These Criminal Revision cases are filed aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2023 passed in Crl.A.Nos.524, 522, 521, 523, 520, 519, 518 of 2019 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.

3. The brief facts of the cases are that the complainant and the accused had prior business and financial transactions, which culminated in a compromise before the Lok Adalat on 10.12.2016. In pursuance of the said Lok Adalat Award, the accused issued several post-dated cheques towards discharge of the agreed liability. Among them, cheque bearing Nos.075362 dated 01.04.2017 and cheque bearing No.705363 dated 01.07.2017, each for an amount of Rs.13,25,000/-, were presented by the complainant for encashment. However, the said cheques were dishonoured on presentation due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, statutory legal notices were issued within time, but despite receipt of the same, the accused failed to make payment. Consequently, separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed, leading to the present cases.

4. The complainant contended that the cheques were issued pursuant to a lawful Lok Adalat Award towards a legally enforceable debt and that the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the other hand, the accused contended that the cheques were issued only as part of a compromise and that the complainant’s remedy was confined to execution of the Lok Adalat Award. It was further contended that the cheques were not issued voluntarily and that the complaints under Section 138 of the Act were not maintainable. Both parties relied upon documentary evidence, and the accused did not dispute the issuance or signature on the cheques.

5. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court vide orders dated 31.01.2023 dismissed the appeals holding that the issuance of cheques pursuant to a Lok Adalat Award did not bar prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that civil and criminal remedies could coexist. The trial Court further held that the accused had admitted the issuance of cheques and failed to rebut the statutory presumptions. Finding that all the mandatory requirements under Section 138 of the Act were complied with, the trial Court convicted the accused in all the cases and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.20,00,000/-, with default sentence, by judgment dated 14.06.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Cases.

6. Heard Smt. Kota Lakshmi Sai Sirisha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and Sri Durga Prasad Kotamraju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – de facto complainant.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgments of both the Courts below were illegal, contrary to law, and against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the cheques in question were issued pursuant to the Lok Adalat Awards passed in PLC Nos.3 and 4 of 2016 and that the said Awards specifically provided for transfer of the secured property in the event of default, thereby extinguishing any further