The High Court · 2025

The State of Andhra Pradesh., rep., by its Public prosecutor, High Court*." Buildings, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. G. A.Wright, S/o. A.F.Wright, Railway Employee, Rto 12-7-289. MettuguOa .: Secunderabad. ...Petitioner ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 & 2 OF 2025: IA No.l of 2O25: A Wright, S/o. A.F.Wright, Railway Emptoyee, Rlo. 1Z-T '289, Mettugudq Secunderabad. ...RespondenUPetitioner No.2 in LA No.1 and 2 ot 2O2S AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, re! , by its Public prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

2. N.Prakash Babu, S/o. Nataralan, Retd.,Railway Employee, R/o. l_lg-119/20, Venkatapuram, Alwal, Secuncierabad. ...Complainant in l.A No.1 and 2 ot 2025 Petition under section 359(6) of BNSS praying tha{ in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioner herein to compound the offence rn the ci.No. 280 of 2o11 on the file of the Xl Special Magistrate at Hyderabad and set aside the appellant's conviction in the said case, in ihe interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 359(2) of BNSS praying that rn the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to record the present joint compromise memo in cc No 280 of 2011 on the file of the Xl special Magistrate at Hyderabad in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri pawan Kumar Agarwal Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :Mr.E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Mr.Potta Tarun Patel The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL I.A.Nos.l and2 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1766 OF 2013 COMMON ORDER:- The present revision is filed questioning the judgment, dated 22.08.2013 passed in Cr1.A.No.46l of 2072 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, conltrming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner in C.C.No.28O ot 2021, dated 07.05.2O12 t:y the XI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr.Pawan Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for thc petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Potta Tarrn Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. During the course of hearing, both the learned counscl submit that petitioner and respondcnt No.2 have compromised the matter and accordingly, I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2O25 are filecl seeking permission of this Court to compound the offence registered against him for the offence under Section 138 ol the \ i 2 'ni .,i: Negotiablc Instruments Act, 188 1 and to record the 5 compromrse

4. Or-r 17.I2.2O24, thc petitioner and respondent No.2 are present and they were identified by their counscl and this Court directed the petitioner to deposit 57o of the settled zrmount ie., Rs.5,O00/- to the credit of Telangana Statc Legal Services Committee and other St'/o ie., Rs.5,0OO/- to the credit of Telangana Advocates Association, to record the terms of compromisc between the partics and to tile Lhc reccipts. The petitiorrcr filed Memo, dated 27 .12.2024, along n,rtl'r the reccipts to shorv the payment of costs. The presence of thc petitioner and respondent No.2 also dispensed with.

5. In vierv of the settlement arrived at betweerl thc partics no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pen<iing. Having rcgard to the enabling provision of Scction 359(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (prcviously kn oun-r as Section 32O of Criminal Procedure Code) perntission is accorded and the compromise is recorded. The mento shall lorm part of this ordcr. \ l. To,

6. Accordingly, I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2025 and this Crirtrinal Revision Case are allowed setting aside the judgments, dated

07.O5.2012 and 22.O8.2O13 passed in C.C.No.28O of 201I and Crl.A.No.461 of 2012 respectively, and the petitioner/ accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable InsLruments Act, 188 1-

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. sd/- P cH NA3+iHHSlsH"^f; /,TRUE COPY" secfttiorrrcen at Hvderabad I rhe rV Additronar {:l::X,:":i,ir,::;!o;,'o''on" i tn" Xt Special Magtstrare' i'-'i'^l"-^Ii-aavocate IOPUCI t cj ;"'c ; i; q'' : lyT^lJI;:[t ili:$]:',ii::,1 I *:33jiji[$:1'f;;;'J"; Hign co"t to' " 6 Two CD CoPies ai HYderabad [OUT] " .,,,. or r e,a ns a n a Svs/qh (Along r'vitli a copy ol Joint Memo of Cornpramoise) HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 = ::- Bo s o<. J c o \ t M40 AUB C, ,J ..\ / COMMON JUDGMENT !.A.NOS.1 AND 2 ot 2025 IN/AND CRLRC.No.1766 ot 2013 ALLOWING THE I.A.NOS.1 AND 2 of 2025 IN/AND CRLRC.No.1766 of 2013 Memorandum of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filetl U/s- 159(r ) ol'UN!;S l{IGH COURT FOR TtlE STATE OF TELENGANA AT: IIYDEIlAUAD ,l of 20),) I.A. \t Crl.RC. No, 1766 of 2013 (On the file of ihe Hon'ble lV Addl. Merropolitan gesriorr JLrtlL;'-, ll711' "'l'"l.l') Between: A. Wright S/o Late A.F Wright, Aged about:71 Years, Occ: Railway Employee, Rl o. l2-7 -289, Mettuguda, Secunderabad' I F.r:;Irr.rt11'. : r1,11 rr rrr )xdo'2 "'titrr 1 7 And State of Telanqana, Rep. by Public Prosector, High Court at Hyderabad for the St3te of Telengana. N. Prakash Babu S/o Late Natrajan Aged about: 69 Years, Occ: Retired Railway Eri rployee, R/o 1- 19- 119/20, Venkatapuram Al ^/al, Secunderabad. (,,rrlrl.tiir.'tlt! The Petitioners most respectfully submits as under 1 2 It is submitted that the Petitioner herein has filed tlrc 'rl'rrvr: {'.ri'ii(' challenging the order passed by the Hon'ble IV Adr-|rttottai l1t'ltr;1rr'Lrtorl Sessions Judge, Hyclerabad, in Crl. A. No 461 ot 2012, rl tlr'tl '-l l! ''ltll j consequentlytoacqUittheAppellantfortheofienceUlldel5(|LLlOlll]UOIlt,i- 'rrrrl Act. That due to the mediations of the well wishr:rs of thil p,rrtr.r, tl'r' Ilrirtt|r l' settled in between the padies herein on 1103'2014 tor lltr lrrll rttd Irtr'rl settlement of Rs.1!0,000/- and the said amount was paid by tlr': A1>ptllattt by way of cash to the 2nd Respondent as such the 2"'j Retllontl,,,irt also (loi'! not wish to proceed further in the matter aqaill jt the Pe[ititirr"t ' a. i ::- -2" \ li.ir tr:,.)ailli I i rr-. i--1611 1;1.. tr r. i)ritlcd that thi,; Iio:r,l;lr,( ()rrrI r,try l.ret p|(,,.r,,r.11 to r(,(.0rrl lhe r_ ) )i)ioIli!!d Inemo art{1 tn tl '.i ,,,p*ci;rr r.laq srrare ., ,,r0",.j.;,,f1; ;llii;,.] r,.:,'il::"' -/,"'il,l'* Pr.l iti0lci {\ 1(1t'.t ' ,!' iJ Irj'tl-( t l"'," Pjlftoftet llo.2 r tl I I Ci,lr..rlli th,t, r,,,,,,, l!.tr i tr..X,! t , )U rr,l l()r Ure l)etili|ner,NuC -' i ,'t ,'' D}STRICT: HYDTI{ABAD