The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 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 permit the parties to compound the offense in CRLA No.196 of 2014 on ttre 1te of ihe t1 Additional District and Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District confrrming the conviction and sentence imposed in c c No 227 of 2013 on the file of the lX Special Magistrate Hasthinapuram. 1:e-.+r ',.- lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: J N. CHAITANYA, S/0. J.Jairam, occ Business, ,o Ft. t No Manjeera Heights-ll, Chitra Layout, L.B.Nagar, R.R. Distnct 401, C-Block, AND 1 2 The State of Telangana. rep by Publrc Prosecutor, High Court. Hyderabad. Ladipelly Santosh Kumar S/o L Vijay Kumar, occ Busrn,lss r/o H.No. 10-6- 300, Sai Nagar Colony Lingojiguda, Saroomagar, Hyderabad. ..P()titioner/Respondent ... Res pon denUpetitioner Petition under Section 359 of BNSS praying that n the ctrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to record the terms of compromise between the paai€s CRLA No 196 of 2O14 on the file of the lll Additional District and Sessions ,lrdge Ranga Reddy Drstrrct confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C I No 227 of 2013 on the file of the lX Special Magistrate Hasthinapuram Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Gundaram Manoj Goud counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri Radhika Rathi Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Assistant Public prosec.rtor The Court made the following: ORDER . T I ! i I I : i THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA l.A.Nos.'l and 2 of 2025 in/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.323 of 2016 COMMON ORDER Challenging the judgment dated 13.01 .2016 passed ln Criminal Appeal No.196 of 2014 by the learned lll Additional Diskict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, this Criminal Revision Case is filed By the impugned order, the judgment dated 03.03.2014 passed in C.C No.227 of 2013 by the learned lX Special Magistrate, Cyberabad, was confirmed, wherein, the petitioner-appellant- accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881 (for short'Nl Act') and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months

2. lt is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2, that during pendency of the present Criminal Petition, the parties have compromised the matter Accordingly, l.A.Nos.'1 and 2 of 2025 haue been filed to permit them to compound the offence and to record the compromise between 2 (:t'ln.t:.t 2016

3. Vide order dated 30.07.2025, this Court dirr:rled the parties along with their respective counsel to appear befo-e the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Courl for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, for identification and to subrnit a report.

4. Pursuant to the above said direction issued try this Court, the parties have appeared and the Secretary, High Coul Legal Services Committee, has identified the parties and submitterl a report, dated 17 09.2025 and the same is placed on record

5. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent hav I resolved their issues. ln view of the same and considering fl^e report, dated

17.09.2025, l.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 filed to compoLrrrd the offences and compromise the matler are allowed. Consequer ily, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction a td sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner-appellant-accused in the judgment dated 13.01.2016 passed in Criminat Appeal No 196 of 2014 by the learned lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the judgment dated 03.03.2014 passed in C C.No 227 of 2013 by the learned lX Spr:cial Magistrate, Cyberabad, is hereby set aside subject to the petitioner/accused paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the I i I I 3 1:tD. J Crlrc 323 )Al6 Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and Rs.5,0001 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Telangana Bar Association, Hyderabad, within a period of three (03) weeks from today and file proof of the same before the Registry- The bail bonds of the petitioner-appellant accused shall stand cancelled 6 Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/-T.VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPYi/ To, '1. The lll Additional Distflct and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The lX Special Magistrate, Cyberabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri. Gundaram Manoj Goud, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Radhika Rathi, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies (enclosed a copy of compromise memo) (DL)iPSL p^{q. Note: Total Amount of Rs. '10,000/- ( Rupees Ten thousand only ) has been paid by Sri Gundaram Manoj Goud, Counsel for the Petttioner as directed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 as Rs. 5,0001 ( Rupees FiVe thousand only ) to the Secretary, Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad, and Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only ) to the Telangana Bar Association, Hyderabad and flled Memo as proof of compliance USR No. 111946 dated 10-10-2025 --*ffi-'":-:+-r:<iGa l I I I j I I I f i I HIGH COURT DATED:221O912025 ORDER l.A. Nos. 1 and 2 ol 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 323 OF 2016 1B ;{ii 2U5 ,t\ :: )i i '". (:t1t- ,., t:.! ../ i: r.A. NOS. 't AND 2 0F 2025 AND ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE ?|.(c. Slrrtx 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OI.- JUDICATURE :TELANGANA AT HYDL]]IABAD CRLRC.No. 323 ol 2025 I]F]'I'WEEN Laclipall-v Santhosh Kumar, S/ o.L.\rrJay Kumar, Occ. Business, Ii/o.H.No. 10-63-00, Sai Nagar Colony, Saroornagar, Ilyderabad. ... Pe titioncr/ Accu sed ANL) 1).The Slerte of Telangana, Itep. by rts Public Prosecutor, I{igh Court oI Telangana, At Hyderabad. 2 )J. N. Ch ari t:rnya, S/o.J.Jairarn, Agead abot 40 Years, Occ.Bsincss, R/o.F.No.4O1, C Block, Majeera heights II, Chihtra LaYout, I-. B. Nagar, R.R.District. .. Respondent/ De-facto Complainant JOIN1 MEMO

4. The Petitioner is the Accused in CLRA.No' 196 of 2Ol4 on the fite of ttl Additional District Sessions Judge RangaReddl' by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in CC'277 of 20 13 on the file of Hon'ble IX Special Mag istrate Court, Hasthinapuram. ltunft{L

2. Reccntll. thc matter has bcen settlcrl be v,,eerr the partics as per the settlcment agrcctncnt deed dzrted.20.0l).2025. Thc De facto Oornplainant has no interest to pros(,cutc thc Petitioner ancl ac cordingt_v he has r-ro objeclion to r:cmp;-omisc crirlinal re vision proce cdings br:fore thc Llon'ble IJrgh Court agitinst thc Pe:titioncr herein. Sincc the tlattcr h:rs been scttlcd betu,een the parties, thc further proceedinvs bcforc the lriai court is abusc of process o[ lar,r,. He ncc lhis mcmo Datt:: 11 06 2025 Ht,cle rabad lo.tshk''a( ETITIONIiIi COUN I-1 )I IT' PETITIONTiR 2 ,,r l? ItS DtrN'J' 1 , (,\ COUNSEL F 6 2,,,I RESPONDI.NT