CRLRC/1695/2017 of G.VENKATESHWARLU, HYDERABAD Vs VANDANAPU ASHOK KUMAR, NALGONDA DT AND ANR, REP PP., on 16 October 2026

: ORDER :

This Criminal Revision case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.06.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.2 of 2015 by the I-Additional Sessions Judge at Nalgonda, confirming the conviction imposed in C.C.No.8 of 2012 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile Court) at Nalgonda on 22.12.2014. The trial Court convicted

the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-.

2. Heard Sri Madhavarapu Siddartha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Moturi Sri Dhanya, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that during pendency of the present revision case, both the parties have compromised the matter out of court and the respondent No.1 herein has also filed an application vide I.A.No.3 of 2017 (Crl.M.P.No.3617 of 2017) stating that the petitioner herein and respondent No.1 herein have entered into compromise and requested this Court to the permit respondent No.1 to compromise and withdraw the complaint in C.C.No.8 of 2012 and thereafter the petitioner herein paid the amount. Meanwhile, as there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court vide order dated 13.06.2024 observed that there is no representation on behalf of petitioner, and directed the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to file a report pertaining to the NBW’s issued to the petitioner by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court) at Nalgonda for execution to the concerned police and subsequently, the police arrested the petitioner. The petitioner is now in Sub-Jail, Nalgonda inspite of paying the amount and compromising the matter with the complainant. As such, requested this Court to recall the order and dispose of the matter in terms of the compromise.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 on instructions would submit that the matter was already compromised in the year 2017 itself, and the complainant filed I.A.No.3 of 2017 to settle the matter and that they have no grievance if the petitioner is released from jail and the matter is disposed of in terms of compromise. She also submitted that the said compromise was not placed before this Court on the date of issuance of NBW.

5. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and also considering the compromise entered into by the parties, vide I.A.No.3 of 2017, this application is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also allowed in terms of compromise and the NBW issued against the petitioner is recalled and the concerned authorities are directed to release the revision petitioner herein forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :16.10.2026

Note : Issue c.c. by 17.10.2026 B/o Rds

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

I.A.NO.3 OF 2017 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1695 OF 2017 DATE : 16.10.2026 Rds

Issue c.c. by 17.10.2026