The High Court · 2025

Revision filed under Section 397(1) r/w 401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased to allow this Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court dated Sth January, 2024, made in Crl.A.NO. 691 ol 2O17, on the file of the Vlll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, while confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29-5-2017, made in C.C.NO. 424 of 2015, on the file of the Special Magistrate Court, at Hayathnagar, sentencing the Revision Petitioner herein to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of Rs. 16,00,000/- within 45 days and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months; and acquit the Revision Petition. l.A.Nos.'l and il ot 2025 lA NO: 1 OF 202s BETWEEN: G.Venkat Rr:ddy, S/o G.Ram Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Agril., Hayathnaga' Mandal, R.R.District. ... Petitione r/RespondenUDe-facto Complainant in l.A.Nos.1 and 2 ot 2025 AND

1. Podug.r Laxminarsaiah, S/o Narsaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o Door No. 11-10-12811, Flat No.104, Vishwapriya Castle, Street No.13, Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad. .,.Respondent No.1/AppellanUAccused in l.A.Nos.1 and 2 ot 2O2S

2. The State of Telangana, represented lts Public prosecutor, High Court for The State of Telangana, at Hyderabad ...RespondenURespondent in l.A.Nos.1 and2 ol 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the a Tidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit to compound the subject matter of the above CRLRC and allow the same by setting aside the Judgment in CC No. 424 o,f 2O1S on the file of Special Magistrcrte Court at Hayathnagar as confirmed in CRL Appeal No. 691 of 2O17 on the file, of court of the Vlll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District a1. LB Nagar and compound the same in terms of the memorandum of the compronrise executed by and between the petitioner herein and the Respondent No. t herein/ accused. 2 0F 2025 Petition under Section 147 of Nl Act R/w 359 and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to record compromise the subject matter of the above Criminal Revisio,r Case and allow the same by setting aside the proceedings in CC No. 424 of 1!.015 on the file of Special Magistrate Court at 'Hayathnagar confirmed in Crirrinal Appeal No. 691 ot 2017 on the file of court of the Vlll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar and compound the same in terrs of the memorandum of the compromise executed by and between the petitioner herein and the first respondent accused. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl G ANANDAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, Additional Public Prosecutor Counselfor the Respondent No.2 : SRI M RAMA KRISHNA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN TIIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA I.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2O25 inland CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.456 of 2o24 DATE: 22.L2.2O25 Between: G.Venkat Reddy

1. Podugu Laxminarsaiah Petitioner/ Respondent/defacto complainant. AND Respondent No. 1 / appellant/ accused

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by it:; Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stz,te of Telangana at Hyderabad. .... Respondent/ Respondent. COMMON ORDER: It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the reviston petitioner as well as the respondent No.1/Accused, that during pendency of the pres:nt Criminal Revision Case, the parties have compromised the matter anc accordingly, I.A.Nos. L &' 2 of 2025 have been'filed to record the comprcmise between them.

2. Vide order dated 01.12.2025, this Court directed the parties along with their :'espective counsel to appear before the Secretary, High Court { 2 Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana, F.lyderabad, for identification and to submit a report.

3. Pursuant to the above said direction issued by this Court, the parties have appeared and the Secretar5r, High Court Legal Services Committee, tras identified the parties and .submitted a report, dated

09.I2.2025 and the same is placed on record.

4. In view of the above, I.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2025 are allowed. Consequently, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in terms of compromise, setting aside the judgments dated 29.05.2017 and

05.01 .2024 passed in C.C. No.424 of 20 1s(Old C.C. No.1OO3 of 20 15 on the file of Specia,l Magistrate Court, at Hayathnag€rr and Crt.A. No.691 of 2Ol7 on the file of learned VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, respectively and the revision petitioner is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, subject to the revision petitioner paying an amount of Rs.S,OOO/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad (Savings A/c.No.52188926279, State Bank of India, Shantinagar Branch (2OO7O), IFSC Code:SBIN0O2O070, MICR No.500OO 40571 and Rs.S,OOO/- (Rupees Five Thousand OnM to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, within a period. of two (O2) weeks from today and file proof of the same before the Registry. \ \ 3 Mi:;cellaneous applications, if any pending, shall Stand closed. /TRUE COPY// SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I ,in :L To, L.B.Nagar 1' The Vlll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at 2. The Sper:ial Magistrate Court, at Hayathnagar 3' Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High cou-rt for the State of Tetangana at 4. One CC to Sri G Anandam, Advocate [OpUC] 5. one cc to sri [Vr Rama Krishna, Advocate topuc] 6. Two CD Copies Uyderabad (OUT) I ADI(SA with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise ^long Note: Total Amount of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees Ten thousand only ) has been paid by Sri G Anandam, counsel for the Petitioner as directed by the iion'ble Court vide order dated 22-12-2025 as Rs.. 5,000i- ( Rupees Five ihousand only ) to the "Director, Sainik ilfelfare Hyderabad, and is. s,oool- ( Rupees Five tnousand only ) to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad and filed Memo as proof of compliance vide usR No. 1s3093 of 2o2s dated 31-12-202s. ;- - :j'4 t.: -r::t-a . ,.i HIGH COURT DATED t2211212025 i I I I I i i i COMMONI ORDER l.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 ln/and CRLRG.No.456 of 2024 'i irE s ( 1:.) -!- * 3 c ,lAu 'i[/6 i * ALLOWING THE CRLRC AND l.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 202s Iar i,, , INTHEHIGHCOURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD ,::., , j. - I.A. No. sf 20?5 Crl.RC No. IN 456 of 2024 t Between: Podugu Laxminarsaiah S/o. Narsaiah, aged about 63 Years, Occ. Business, R/o- Door No. 17-L0-128/L, Flat No104, Vishwapriya Castle Street No'13, Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet, I-Iyderabad' AND

1. The State of Telangana Rep Py- !!s Pub-lic Prosecutor Hish Court for the State of Telangana a[ I-Iyderabad a . '-:t'.4 ,,i'L. ''a .. Petitioner/ aPPellant Respondent/ ResPondent

2.G Reddy,S/o. G. Ram 5d i;"-utt, Occ. agricul Reddy Mandal, RR District .. Respondent/ defacto cornPla inant MEMORANDUM OFTERMS O TSE t /complainant herein filed complaint in CC No. 424 of . file of Special Magistrate Court at Hayathnagar' against the whereby the for the offence u/s'138 of NI and sentenced to .qrnciergo simple pay comPensation o.f Rs.16,00,000/- the defacto complainant witl'r in forty kirre days and in default' U {ev- pay:nent of compensation to undergo simp morLths vide judgement dated 29-S-2A17..,

2. that the petitioner herein aggrieved by the pref,:rred Criminal Appeal being Crl.A.No. 697 of 2077, oirhe file of the vlll Addl. Metropolitan sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dish-ict, at L.B. Nag,rr, r.vhich w,as also ended in dismissal. vvhile conforming the judg:ment of conviction passed by the trial court,aggrieved by the said judg,:ment the petitioner herein preferred the above Criminal Revision Case

3. That during the pendency of above criminal revision case, on the advice of r:lders and wellwishers,matter has bgen , seltled. between petitioner/Accused and the respondent No.2 t and accordingly both the parties herein entered rnem()randum of terms of compromise i) That the petitioner/accused.'has' ug*""d Rs.6,00,00O/ - ( Rs. 5,00,000/. in cash' and, Dernand Draft) .- towards full and final . .^i:::- 424 of 201 t t --l- --- . )lr the above said sumtoward full and final settlement of c{aim. iii) That the petitioner has paid and Respondent No.2 / complainant had received the sam'ii and,e'iecutedla:setiaratrj' valid receipt as having received the sanie ,t19 n""po?iaen!'Nd:2,/ complainant has agreed to file ahy affidavit of No 6'lJjection for closure of the , :; aborre criminal case terms of " this memorandum of . :-.1.i ,.-. . .-, :,: :: -. . : , I a 'lOmplOmlse. Aq-, lh. oo a-p'lhe 'ble- cowt. recelve ,( !--

4. That this present ioint memorandum of terms of compromise has been accepted with free will ahd consent without any coercion or :undueinfluence of whatsoever nature and both the parties agree not to violate the terms of this memorandum of comPromise- That in view of the settlement, both the parties have no claim against each othc'r. l It is tl-rerefore the Honourable court may pleased to record the compromise and allow the above Criminal revision case by setting aside the Judgement in CC No. 424 of 2015 on the fite of Speciat Magistrate Court at Hayathnagar.as confirmed inCrt Appeal No. 691 of 2017 on the file of court of the VIII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Lts Nagarby permitting the parties to compound the same interms of the memorandum of the compromise and pass such orders as Honourable cottrt may deem fit and proper in the circurrstances of case and in interest of justice M Counsel for the petitioner/ Accused (v- petitionerf Accused Counsel for the Respondent No.2 "funtNo.2 * :ai .:?