The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...Respondent No.1/Com plaina nt ...Respondent No.2 CRIMINAL REVISION CA SE NO: 2157 OF 2016 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 anrj 401 of Cr.PC against the Order dated 21-06-20'16 made in Crl.A.No.33Z of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge fcr Trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad preferred against the Judgment dated 10-04-2013 made in C C.No.10B oi 2OlZ on the file of the Court of the Vlll Special Magistrate, Hyderab:rd Between: Qhawqn Eshwar, S/o. Chawan Pandurangam, Occ: Bus;iness and Prop V./ g 9,S Marketing, D No 5-8-599, Shoa No.2, Ratanrnal Shopping C Abids, Hyderabad. rietor of om plex, . Petitioner/Acc used AND 1 2 IA11qah, S/o. Late K.Chandraiah, Occ: Agriculture, Fl/o H No.1-8-256, Flat No.305, Jatkar Bhawan, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. ...Respondent No.1/Complainant The State of Telangana, Through its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad ...Respondent No.1/Com plaina nt Counsel for the Petitioners in both CRLRCs : Sri H Sudhakara Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in both CRLRCs : Sri Ii Ganesh, Assistant Puhlic Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in both CRLRCs The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.2156 and,2157 of2016 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Revision Case No.2156 of 2016' is filed by the petitioner/ accused under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 21.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.33 I of 20 13 on the hle of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Communal Offence Cases, Hyderabad, whereby the Judgment dated 10.04.2013 in C.C.No.109 of 2Ol2 on the lrle of VIll Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, was conhrmed.

2. Criminal Revision Case No.2157 of 2016 is hled by the petitioner/ accused under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 21.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.332 of 2Oi3 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Triai of Communal Offence Cases, Hyderabad, rvhereby the Judgment dated i0.O4.2013 in C.C.No.1O8 of 2Ol2 on the file of VIII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, was confirmed.

3. Since these Criminai Revision Cases are identical matters and they are preferred by the petitioner, who is the accused in both the calendar cases, this Court prop oses to ose of the same u er common order 2 .,i:l l:: ! , ..| 4 The backdrop of the instant cases on hand, are as follows: i) In Crl.R.C.No.2156 of 2016 The accused is the proprietor of M / s. S. S. Marketing, situated at Abids, Hyderabad, and he is doing rrn.tltiple businesses, out of which, hc used to raise money from general ltublic by assuring them higher rate of interest. tn that processr respondent No. I has deposited an amount of Rs.1,6O,0O0/- on O8.02.:2010 in the firm of the accused and on the same da1,, 11-r. accused issued post-dated cheques bearing Nos.33O729 and 330794, datecl ()8.04.2010 and

16.04.2010 lor Rs.80,OOO/ each rcspectively drav;r t on State Bank of India, Abids Branch, Hyderabad. Whcn respondent No.1 presented the said cheques before the banker, the same were dtshonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. In the meanwhile, criminal cases were registered againsl the accused uri[h regard to ,:ollection of funds from the general public and thc accused filed LP.No.13 of 2010 before the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Hv,lerabad, showing respondent No.1 as creditor vide respondent No,225 therein. Then, respondent No. 1 got issued legal notice to the acclLsed informing the dishonour of the che que and demanding repay.rrcnt of the said amount, but the accuscd intentionally avoided the service of notice. Therefore, rcspondent No.1 was constrained to file the private complaint vide C.C.No.lO9 of 2012. \t' -. ,ny' 3 ii) In Crl.R.C.No'2157 of 2O15: No.l presented the The accused is the proprietor of M/ s'S S'Marketing' situated at Abids, Hyderabad, and he is doing multiple businesses, out of which, he used to raise money from general public by assuring them higher rate of interest. In that proCeSS, respondent No.l has deposited an amount of Rs'8O,OOO/ on 08 02 201O in the firm of the accused and on the same day' the accused issued a post-dated cheque bearing No.33O733, clated 08 04'2010 for Rs'SO'OOO/- drawn on State Bank of lndia, Abids Branch' Hyderabad' When respondent said cheque before the banker' the same was an endorsement 'funds insufficient' In the dishonoured with meanwhile, criminal cases were registered against the accused with regard to collection of funds from the generai public and the accused filed I.P.No.13 of 201O on the file of the Additional Judge' Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, showing respondent No 1 as creditor vide respondent No.173 therein Then' respondent No 1 got issued Iegal notice to the accused informing the dishonour of the cheque and demanding repayment of the said amount' but the accused intentionally avoided the service of notice' Therefore' respondent No' 1 was constrained to hle the private corrl^1''rfuid-e C'C'No' 1O8 t! ?9!?' 4

5. After conducting full-fledged trial and after considering the submissions of the rival parties, the trial ,lourt found the petitioner/ accused guilfy and accordingly, sentenc:d him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.4,O0O/- for the offence punishable under []t:ction 13g of the N.t.Act, 1881, in default of payment of fine, he _.hall suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month in C.C.No.i0!) of 2O12, while sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment fo:. zr period of three (3) months and to pay hne of Rs.2,00O/- for the r: ffr;nce punishable under Section 138 of the N.l.Act, i881, in default of par.ment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for two (2) rvet:ks in C.C.No.1Og of 2012.

6. Assailing the said Judgments dated 1O.04.!tC 1il, the petitioner preferred appeals vide Criminal Appeal Nos.33l arr] 332 ol 2O13, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions .)udge for Trial of Communal Offence Cases, Hyderabad. The learncrl Scssions Judge considering the material available on record and submissions of the respective parties, dismissed the criminal appes-lr;, confirming the Judgments of the trial Court.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned trial Jurlgle. the petitioner a preferred these Criminal Revision Cases on the ground that the findings of the Courts below are contrary to law, weight of evidence or probabilities of the case and as such the same are not sustainable under law. The ofhcial respondents failed to prove the basic ingredients of the offence with which the petitioner was charged. For these and other grounds, the petitioner seeks for setting aside the impugned judgments and for acquittal of the petitioner for the said offence .

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

9. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submits that the matters were compromised between the parties and the accused is now ready to deposit the cheques amount and prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.

10. As could be seen from the material placed before this Court, the alleged offence took place in the year 2010, the calendar cases were registered in the year 2OI2 and further, these Criminal Revision Case are pertaining to the year 2016. Though notices were directed in both the Criminal Revision Cases, the unofhcial respondents did not 6 enter appearance till date. Even on the perusal 'lf the proceeding sheets, since the beginning there was no proper representation on behalf of the accused and the matters have been ildjourning from time to timc on one pretext or the other. Thr:i efbrc, no fruitful purpose lvoul<l be served, if these Criminal Revisicrn Cases still kept pending on the lile of this Court. Taking irlto account the said submission rrreldt: b1' the learned fi. counsel for tht: accused, without going into merits of the cases, this CourtdecmsitappropriatetodisposeoftheseCr.iminalRevision Cases setting aside the sentence of imprisonmr: nt alone imposed against the petitioner/ accused in C.C.Nos.108 an'l 109 of 2072' Ho\r,ever, the accused shall pay a sum of Rs.3,50,OO0/- (Rupees three lakhs and fift1' thousand only), within one (1) mor'rth from the date of receipt of a copy of a copy of this order, to the crclit of C C Nos' 1O8 andl0gof2Ol2,towardscompensationtotheunrrfficialrespondents i.e., complain:rnts in C.C.Nos. 1OB and 1O9 of 2O)2, in default of payment of the said compensation, the accused :;hall suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months. On deposit of such compensation amount, the trial Court shall permit the complainant in C C'No 1O8 of 2Ol2 i.e., Mr.K.Anjaiah to withdraw a sunr of Rs'1,2O,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand only) and t.he complainant in C.C.No. 1O9 of 2OL2 i.e., Smt.M.Kavitha to u'il.hdraw a sum of /r'" \ I I l 7 Rs.2,30,000/- (Rupee s two lakhs and thirty thousand only) towards compensation, on proper identihcation and acknowiedgment' lL With the above observations, these Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these criminal petitions, shall stand closed. I To, Sd/. N. SRIHARI UTY REGISTRAR E //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1. The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad(with records, if any)

2. The Vlll Special fvlagistrate, Hyderabad 3. The Superintendent, Chanchalguda Central Prison, Hyderabad 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. One CC to Sri H Sudhakara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 COMMON ORDER CRLRC.Nos.21 56 and 2157 ofZOtO'..: 2 3 sEP 2025 .- ,/ 1/ DISPOSING OF THE BOTH GRLRCS ? 4z t<,///z r