Telangana High Court
CRLRC/1693/2005 of Perikala Bhaskara Rao, Vs Chaluvadi Seetharamulu, on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1693 OF 2005 ORDER: The first respondent herein filed a private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ongole stating that the petitioner
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADACRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1693 OF 2005
ORDER:
The first respondent herein filed a private complaint under section200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein before the learned IIAdditional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ongole stating that the petitionerissued a cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and onpresentation the same was bounced. The learned Magistrate took thesame into cognizance as C.C.No.427 of 2003 for the offence punishableunder section 138 of N.I. Act. After trial the learned Magistrate found thepetitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted andsentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six monthsand further directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the firstrespondent herein, under section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. Petitionerquestioned the said judgment dated 15.10.2004 by way of CriminalAppeal No.150 of 2004 and the learned I Additional District & SessionsJudge, Ongole by his judgment dated 27.09.2004, while concurring withthe findings given by the trial court, dismissed the said appeal. Hence thepresent revision.
This court while admitting this revision, granted bail to thepetitioner on 06.10.2005. It appears, during the pendency of this revision,there was a settlement between the petitioner and the first respondentand in the light of the said settlement the petitioner herein paid thecheque amount to the first respondent. In those circumstances, both thepetitioner and the first respondent appeared before this court today. When questioned the first respondent by name Ch.Seetharamulu statedthat he received the said amount of Rs.60,000/- and hence he is notinterested in getting the matter prosecuted further.
As the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act iscompoundable, and as there was settlement between the parties, thiscourt is of the view that the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by both the courts below can be set aside.
Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the judgments of both thecourts below are hereby set aside.
-----------------
30.12.2010 Sri
T.G.K, J.Kvsn