The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order of the Hon'ble appellate court passed in Clt{P No.559/2025 in Crl. Appeal No. 12412025, dl. 11-09-2025 on the file of the Vl Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist. At Kukatpally, only in so far as such condition directing the petitioners for the deposit of 1Ao/o of compensation amount, which comes to Rs. 33,OO,OOO/- on or before 29-10-2025, in the intbrest of justice. --7_- / ::2:: l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Cdminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the appellate court order passed in CMP 559/2025 in Crl. Appeal No. 124 of 2025 dated 1 1 -09-2025 on the file of the Vl Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist. At Kukatpally, only in so far as such condition directing the petitioners for the deposit of 10% of compensation amount, which comes to Rs. 33,00,000/- on or before 29-10-2025, pending disposal of quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. NARASIMHA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners, Sri E.Ganesh, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri C.M.R.Velu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EAD.A CRIMINAL PETITION No.13884 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to reduce the interim compensation ordered to be paid by the petitioners ylde order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P No.559 of 2025 in Crl.A. No.'124 of 2025 by the Vl Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Sri K. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri CMR Velu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 3 The crux of the case is that the petitioners herein have suffered conviction in the trial cou( vlde STC Nl No.340 o'f 2023 whereunder they were convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and was directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,30,00,0001 i.e. the cheque amount within two months from the date of the judgment Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners have preferred an appeal vide Crl.A No.124 of 2025 before the Vl Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy frstrict at Kukatpally At the time of presenting the appeal, they also \ filed Crl.M P. No.559 ot 2025 seeking suspension of sentence during 2 ETO,J crt.P. l,o.1tgu ol 2025 the pendency of the appeal. The appellate court has allowed the said application on condition that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs.10,0001 with two sureties each for the likesum and on further condition of payment of 10o/o of the compensation amount on or before 29.10.2025. The present petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the said order

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that 10olo of the cheque amount would come out to Rs.33,00,000/- which is very huge amount and that the petitioners have suffered loss in their business and are not able to pay such huge amount and therefore, prayed to relax the said condition, and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. Madhya Pradesh State lndustrial Development Corporation Limited and othersr.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the financial capacity cannot be a ground to reduce the interim compensation and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Muskan Enterprises & another v. State of Punjab & anothel and the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Nagoboina Rama Rao v. The State of Telangana3. He further submitted that the I I {mzr) to scc ao '202lt SCC Online SC 4 t07 !t w Finder Doc lD #2488766 I /r l EfO,J C.l.P. No.ltAAl ol 202€ petitioners have suffered conviction for dishonour of cheque to an amount of Rs.3,30,00,0001, out of which no amount has been paid to the de facto complainant eversince the pendency of the proceedings.

6. Perused the record

7. ln Jamboo Bhandari's case, the (1 supra), the Supreme Court has held that: "ln a case where appellate court is satisfied that condition of deposit of 2Oo/o wrll be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivatlon of right of appeal of appellant, exception can be made for reasons specifically recorded. Therefrore, when appellate court considers prayer under Section 389 Cr.P.C., of an accused, who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of Nl Act, it is always open to appellate cou( to consider whether it is exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of 20olo of fine/compensation amount.' B. ln Muskan Enterprises v. State of Telangana (2 supra) the High Court has declined to entertain the petition under Section 4BZ Cr.P.C., wherein the amount awarded towards interim compensation was prayed to be reduced, but the Apex Curt has set aside the High Court's order and has directed to remand the matter to the Sessions Court to reexamine the issue of ordering deposit. \ Whet\er sufficient ground has been made out by the appellant to persuade the Sessions Court not to order any deposit is left entirely I 4 ETO,J crt.P. No.13aU ol 2025 to its discretion and satisfaction. ln the said case 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial court was directed to be paid within a period of 60 days in the trial court.

9. ln Nagoboina Rama Rao v. The State of Telangana, a coordinate Bench of this Court has held that: 'The relevant provision under Section 148 of Nl Act, 1881 prescribes that in an appeal against conviction the appellate Court may direct the appellanuaccused to deposit the sum which shall not be less lhan 20yo of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court, which would be in addition to the interim compensation paid under Section 143(A) of the Nl Act. The sub Section 2 clarifies the amount ordered for payment shall be directed to deposit within a period of 60 days from the date of order. ln this statutory position, the appellate Court directing the revision petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within a period of 60 days from the date of order is perfectly justified. The inability pleaded by the revision petitioner cannot be a tenable ground to interfere with the impugned order. Further, the aspect of legally enforceable debt would be an aspect for consideration in the appeal but not against the impugned order."

10. Thus, in the light of the said decisions and on considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the interim compensation amount to be paid by the petitioners is reduced to 5olo which comes to Rs.16,50,000/- payable within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I I 5 ETO,J Cd.P. o.1388J olm2g

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed reducing the compensation amount to be paid by the petitioners from 10% to 5% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial court and the same is payable within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// D/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI TANT REGIS N OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist. At Kukatpally, 2. The X Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy Dist. At Kukatpally

3. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Madhapur 4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. One CC to SRI K. NARASIMHA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI C.M.R.VELU Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies TPK,/PSL Yt- HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 ORDER CRLP.No-13884 of 2025 E STA 2{JAt{2 [26 ,.- c-\ * C, C) ( t CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOWED 4rnn 10 [**