Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2016 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In view of the above, I.A. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed, permitting both parties to compromise the case. Respondent No.1 is permitted to compound the offence with the petitioner
Judgment
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: I.A.No.3 of 2025 The application is filed to permit the 1st respondent to compound the offence with the petitioner. The petitioner and the 1st respondent are present 2 and submitted that they had amicably resolved the matter at the instance of the elders of both sides..
2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence with the accused. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3 of 2025 is allowed, permitting the 1st respondent to compound the offence with the petitioner. I.A.No.2 of 2025
The application is filed seeking to compromise the case. A joint memo is also filed by the Petitioner/Accused and 1st respondent for compromise.
For the reasons mentioned in the joint memo and affidavits, the petition is allowed permitting the petitioner to compromise the case. Accordingly, the I.A.No.2 of 2025 is allowed. I.A.No.1 of 2025
The application is filed seeking to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- covered by the Fixed Deposit Receipt drawn on Union Bank of India, Mangalagiri Branch in the name of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri in C.C.No.609 of 2015, dated 08.04.2019 which was pursuant to impugned order passed by this Court I.A.No.1 of 2019 Crl.R.C.No.277 of 2019 dated 11.0.2019. 3
In view of the settlement of the dispute in between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed permitting petitioner/Accused to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
The Hon9ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H1 observed that for compounding an offence under the provisions of the NI Act before the revisional Court, i.e., the High Court, the petitioner is required to pay a certain amount towards costs. However, the Hon9ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain2 relaxed the rigor of the judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu supra and observed that in appropriate cases, matters can be compounded at the revision stage either on payment of minimal costs or by waiving the costs in suitable cases.
7. Considering the financial position of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to permit both parties to compromise the matter, subject to payment of minimal costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee. The costs of Rs. 5,000/- shall be payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee within one (1) week. Upon payment of the minimal costs, the criminal revision case is disposed of as compromised. The petitioner is acquitted under Section 320(8) of 8the Cr.P.C9.
In view of the above, I.A. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed, permitting both parties to compromise the case. Respondent No.1 is permitted to compound the offence with the petitioner
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 07 Jan 2026. The bench was Y LAKSHMANA RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.