The High Court · 2025

1. M/s. SRAVBLCCS . Ltd., Rep.by its proprietor Sri.T. Ilamesh, S/o. T. Mallesharn, Aged 43 years, Occ.-Business, ii/o. 1_26!;,2nd F:loor, Shobina 1st Street, Ealanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

2. T. Ramesh, S/o.T. Ma_llesham, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Uusiness, R/o. 1-265, 2nd floor. Shobana 1st Street, Balanagar, Hl,derabad, fetangJna State. ...Petitioner/Appellanls/Accused No.1 & 2 AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by public prosecutor, High Court 1br the State ot I elangan.r at l-lyderabad. . .Respondent i.r:fp" ^Si1g1, Flat No.310, Satya Sai Apartments, -Maitrivanam, Telangana S:ate. W/o Mahip Singh, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Br-siness, R/o. ' - SR Nagar, Uycterabad. ...Respondents/Respor den ts/Com pla in a nt IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition undr)r section 528 of BNSS praying that in the c ircumstances stated in the affid;rvit 'iled. in support of the petition, the lligh court may be pleased to Stay o all further proceedings in pursuance ol tne ludgmeni Ot. 5.7.2024 passed ir c.cr.Nl No. 830 ot 2021 on the file of the Vlll MJtropolitan lvlagistrate, Hyderalrad oending disposal of the criminal Revision casre. CRIMINAL REVISICIN CASE NO: 1291 OF 2024 criminal Revrsion case filed under section 438 & 442 of BNS{I aqainst the Judgment dated 26t09t2024 made in crl.M.p.No.1 440 of 2024 in cri rt.Nt. izo-z or 2024 on the file of tt e Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judgr:, at ffvO"raUaO. Between:

1. M/s. SRAVB_CCIS Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Sri. T. Ramesh, S/o. T. Mallesham Age,d 43 years, Occ Business, R/o. .l_ 265, 2nd flc,or, Shobana 1st Street, Ba anagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2. T. Ramesh, S;/o. 'f. Mallesham, Aged about 43 years, ()cc Business, R/o. 1- 265, 2nd rloor, Shobana 1st Street, Balanagir, Hyd:rabad, Telangana State. AND 1 ...Petitioner/Appellants/l\ccused Nos.1 & 2 The State of T:langana, Rep. by public prosecutor, High Court for.the State of Telangana i t Hyierabad. 2 ...Respondent ff iffi ,3jTi#J:Ji?l'3,',,fi9,{'fi :,,?[?X,,,f t?'.i,ffi fl i:,:Ar;fl " ...Respondents/Respondents/Complainant IA NOi2 oF 2024 Petition under Section_ 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited, in support of tne #trtitn, tne High Court may be pleased to Stay of all further prbt.eOings in "p]r*rn"u of the Judgment Dt. o5'o7 2024 passed in c.c.Nr.Nd.e2t i6ir"",iirr" fire of rhe V, Metroporitan "i Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending aisposit "itn" NAL REVlsloN CASE NO : 1292 OF 2024 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS against the Judgment dated 26tost20z+ nadi ii ci.n,'.p.rv'" ii55 0t 2024 in crr.A.Nb.1266 0f 2024 on the fite ofthe court oiihe tnA;;lii;;;l s;::il". Judse, at Hyderabad. Between: 6ririirr Revision case. CRIMI 'i'.iru,3fr[:'o'f"i.ili+i=T'd;3l,,i!],"'"llo*l:l"i,fJ:l-?8ff .Ji",:l"; 't st Street, Ba ia nEsa r, H iG;; b rdi""d" iir=,i.i'# t". 2. T. Ramesh, S/o.T. Mallesham, A_ged about 43 years, Occ_ Business. R/o 1-265, 2nd froor, Shobina-i';t' s=ir*I"Elirligrr, Hyderabad, Tetangana AND

1. 2 ...Petitioner/Appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 2 IlBff:l"r"i '':iflffi3a*' bv Pubric Prosecutor, Hish court ror the state or ff :f;iff;,q#f .:lt%,i#gXi"1',,':,f fl :H,#[.,itt;Bii,',1?t:0.:a*,o ...Respondents/Respondents/Complainant ...Respondent lA NO: 2 oF 2024 Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired. in support of the p;t''t,;", the High court may be pleased, to stay of a, further prbteeoings in of the Judgment Dt. -p-rr*rn"" i I ,,--)

5.7.2024 passed in o.c.Nl.No.823 of 2021 on the file of the vil Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyder abacl, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case. CRIMINAL REVI S toN CASE NO: 1293 OF 2024 criminal Rr,vision case filed under section 43g & 442 of BNSS aqainst the Judgment dated 26t09t2024 made in crt.M.p.No.1 qqt or zoii tijria r.ri,-ii-oti'"r 2024 on the fite ot the court of the rV Additionar sessions .rr. g. ,i iyd";orJl Between: 1 . M/s. SRA\ /BLC:CS Ltd, Rep.by its proprietor S T. Mallesha,n. A,3ed 43 years, Occ. Business,'R/o. 1_26 1st Street. E alaragar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. l.lqmesh S/o T. Mallesham, Agejl about 43 years, Occ. Bur;iness, R/o. .l_ 265,2nd fto,rr, Strobana 1st Streei, ealanagar,riydtiiOea feLnginl SLte. flamesh, S/o_ nd floor, Shobana ri,T ;t AND 1 ...Petitioner/Appellants /Accused Nos.1 & 2 The state of rerangana., rep. by pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangan: r at lly-derabad. 2 3r91pa _Sj1O1, W/o. Mahip Singh, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o - - Flat No 3'10. Satva Sai Adartm6nts, [aaitrivanam, Sn--i.r-igrr, Hycerabad Telangana S.ate. Respondent ...Respondents/Respon dents/Com p la ina nt IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition undr:r section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidirvit r'ired. in support of the putifiin, the High c,rurt miy be qlgaged to Stay o,l ail further proceedings in pursuance of tne Judgmeni Dt. 5.7.2024 passed ir c c.Nr.No.827 ot zo11 on the fire of the vili r,rrEtrofofitln Magistrate, Hyderat ad, lrending disposar of the criminar Revisirn case. CRIMINAL REVIsto N CASE NO: 1294 0F 2024 criminar Revision iase fired un-der section 438 & 442 of BNSS aqainst the Judsment dated 26t(et2c'21 \19" jl c'.Lru.F.r'jo.i+ii ;20i4 ;,"c;x irf iiici'.r 2024 on the fire of thr: court of tne lv AJJition;l;;;;.. Judge at Hyrierabad. Between: 1 2 M/s- K. S_aidi Reddy and Co, Rep.by its Proprietor Sri. K. Saidi Reddy S/o. Padma Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, No. 5-12612, Fathenagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. K. Saidi Reddy, S/o. Padma Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, Rlo. 5-12612, Fathenagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...Petitioner/Appellants/Accused Nos.'t & 2 AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. Pushpa Singh, Wo. Mahip Singh, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o- Flat No.310, Satya Sai Apartments, Maitrivanam, SR Nagar, Hyderabad Telangana State. ... Respondent ...Respondents/Respondents/Complainant lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 Stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Judgment Dt. 5.7.2024 passed in C.C.N|. No. 821 of 2021 on the file of the Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case. CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1295 OF 2024 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS against the Judgment daled 2610912024 made in Crl.M.P.No.'1 446 ot 2024 in Crl.A.No.1273 of 2O24 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad. Between: 'I . M/s. K. Saidi Reddy and Co., Rep.by its Proprietor Sri. K. Saidi Reddy S/o. Padma Reddy,Aged about 48 years, Occ Business, FJo. 5-12612, Fathenagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

2. K. Saidi Reddy, S/o. Padma Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, Rlo. 5-12612, Falhenagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. AND 1 The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Appellants/Accused No.1 & 2 2 Pushpa Singh, Wo. Mahip Singh, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.310, Satya Sai Apartments, Maitrivanam, SR Nagar, Hyderabad Telangana State. ... Respondents/Respondents/Complainant ...Respondent lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition un,ier Section 528 of BNSS praying that i1 the circumstances stated in the affi,lavit filed in support of the petition, the High (lourt may be pleased to Stay tf all further proceedings in pursuance of the Judgment Dt. 5.7.2024 passed in C.C.Nl.No.861 of 2021 on the file of ihe Vilt Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderirbad, pending disposal of the Criminal Revi;ion Case. CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1296 OF 2024 Criminal Re uision Case filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSiS against the Judgment dated 2ti,10912024 made in Crt.M.p.No.1447 ot 202,t in Crl.A.No..l274 of 2024 on the file of the Oourt of the lV Additional Sessions Judl]e, at llyderabad. Between:

1. M/s. Shivan Sor:ial Service Organization, Rep.by its p esident Sri. K Bq{-a-V_Slo Padma Reddy, Aged about 48'yeiars, Ccc. Business, 5-12612, Fat renagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Teiangana State. K. Saidi^Re,ldy S/o. Padma Reddy, Aged about 48 y:ars, Ccc. Business, Rlo. 5-12612 Fathenagar, Balanagai, Hy-derabad, Telangana State. Saidi R/ o. 2 ...Petitioner/ Appellants/Accused No.1 & 2 AND

1. The State of felangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Oourt fcr the State of Telangana a1 Hyderabad. 2

3.rrg1pa-Sj!S I Wo_lvlahip Singh, Aged about 38 years, ()cc. Business. R/o. Flat No.310 Saty;r Sai Apartments, Maitrivanam, SR Nagar, Hyderabad Telangana Slate .. . Respondent ...Respondents/Respon dents/13om plainant lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition undr'r seclion 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited rn support of the petition, the F igh Court may be pleased to Stay ol all further proceedings in pursuance of the Judgmeni Dt. 5.7.2024 passed in c.c;.Nt.No 834 of 2021 on the file of the vilt Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Revisir>n Case. CR]MINAL REVISIO N CASE NO: '1297 OF 20 24 criminal Revi ;ion case filed under Section 439 & 442 ol, BNSS against the Judgment dated 26tt)gt2()24 made in crl.M.p.No.1444 oI 2024 n crt.p,.N;.127.1 of 2o24 on the file of the cc,urt of the lV Additional sessions Judge ., at Hyderabad. Between: 1 M/s. K. Saidi Reddy and Co., Rep.by its Proprietor.Sri. K. Saidi Reddy S/o. Padma Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, Rlo- 5-12612, Fathenagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

2. K. Saidi Reddy, S/o. Padma Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, Rlo. 5-12612, Fathenagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...Petitioner/ Appellants/Accused No.1 & 2 AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. .. . Respondent 2 Pushpa Singh, Wo. Mahip Singh, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No.310, Satya Sai Apartments, Maitrivanam, SR Nagar, Hyderabad Telangana State. ...Respondents/Respondents/Complainant lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 Stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Judgment Dt- 5.7.2024 passed in C.C.NI.No.856 of 2021 on the file of the Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioners in all CRLRCS : Sri N Vishal representing Sri P Vishnuvardhana Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in all GRLRCs : Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in all CRLRCs The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL 129 RE\/ISION CASE Nos.1279 L29Q' 294.129s 1296 and L297 1 t 2024 L292 COMMON ORDER: ' CriminrLl l?evision Case No. l2Z9 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners a1lgne rved by the common order datei 26.09.2024 in Crl.M.P.No. [2.45 of 2024 in Crl.A.No. l2Z2 of 2024 on the file of the learned [V .,\dditional Sessions Judge, at :Ivderebad (for short, "the a.p pellirte Court,,).

2. Crimina Rr:vision Case No. l29O of 2024 ts file,1 by the petitioners se:king to set aside the order dated 26.09.2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 1412 of 2024 in CrI.A.No.1269 of 2C24 before the appellate Corrr t.

3. Criminirl Rr:yision Case No. l29l of 2024 i:; filecl bv the petitidners set ki.13 to set aside the order dated 126.09 ,2024 in Crl.M.P.No.I,+t:.O cf 2O24 in Crl.A.No.126Z of 2O,24 before the appellate Cour _.

4. Crimina.l Revision Case No.l292 of 2024 is lited by the petitioners se:e <ing to set aside the order dated 16.09. ..2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 143) o. 2024 in Crl.A.No.t266 of 2024 befbre tt€ appellate Court I 2

5. Criminal Revision Case No. L293 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order dated 26.09 .2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 1441 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1268 of 2024 before the appellate Court.

6. Criminal Revision Case No.l294 of 2024 is hled by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order dated 26.09 .2024 In Crl.M.P.No. 1443 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.l27O of 2024 before the appellate Court.

7. Criminal Revision Case No. 1295 of 2024 is filed' by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order dated 26.09.2024 in CrI.M.P.No. 1446 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.1273 of 2024 before the appellate Court.

8. Criminal Revision Case No. 1296 of 2024 ts filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order dated 26.09 .2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 1447 of 2024 in Cr1.A.No.1274 of 2024 before the appellate Court.

9. Criminal Revision Case No.1297 of 2024 is frled by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order dated 26.09.2024 rn Crl.M-P.No.1444 of 2024 in Crl.A.No'127 1 of 2024 before the appellate Court. 3 Since, thr' issue involved in all these Revision Case,s is one and the same, the.y are being disposed of by way of a r:ommon order. For the rsz ke of convenience, the facts in Crl.R C.No. 1290 of 2024 are discur sed as hereunder:-

10. Heard .vlr.ltr.Vishal, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Vishnuvzrr lhana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.E-Ganer;h, learned Assistant Public Prosecul or ap cearing for respondent Nr>. 1-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.1 . Pe,rused the record.

11. Relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble lpex Court in Bani Singh and. others Vs. State of Uttar Pradeshr anc. as no prejudice would be :aused to the rights of the parties, thisr Court is inclined to dispos,: of these matters at the admissic,n sta11e. L2. The brief iact s of the case are that the tria Cour:t vide judgment dated 05,07.2024 in C.C.N.I.No.83O of itO21 .n (old C.C.No.7 of 2Oi 0) found the petitioners/ accused llos.1 and 2 guilty of the c ffence punishable under Section 138 ,rf the Negotiable Instntmer:rts Act (for short, ',the NI Act") and sentenced I 1199614 Supreme Court laseJ 720 4 them to pay fine of Rs. 1,52,0OO/- and in default, accused No.2 representing accused No.1 was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Out of the fine amount of Rs.1,52,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,000/- was directed to go to State and remaining fine amount of Rs. 1,5O,O00/- was to be paid to respondent No.2/complainant as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.1269 of

13. The petitioners preferred Crl.M.P.No.1442 of 2024 in Crl.A.No. L269 of 2024 before the appellate Court; vide impugned order dated 26.O9.2024, the appellate Court had suspended the payment of compensation by the petitioners, pending Revision, subject to the following conditions:- "ln the result, the petition is allowed and the payment of compensation rs suspended titt the disposal of the appeal, subject to the petitroner appellate shall deposit 2O7o out of the compensation amount within sixty (60) days from the date of this order and on execution of personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,O00/- with one surety for a likesum by A2 representing the accused No. I, to the satisfaction of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner shatl be present and subject the compliance. Meanwhile, call with the main case on 6.11 .2024." Assailing the same, the petitioners preferred the present Revision.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the time granted by the appellate Court for depositing 2Oo/o of tl:e ( 5 compensati( n amount had expired on 26.12.2024 ar.d that the petitioners r:oui,1 not comply with the said dirr.ction He states that the pet tioners have fair chances of success in this Revision and seeks fr Lrthr:r time of eight (B) seeks time to compty with the conditions irrpos;ed by the appellate Court.

15. Upon :areful consideration of the mater.al available on record, the rrppr:llate Court observed that the p:titior ers would suffer hardslrip :.f the sentence imposed by the t.ial Court is not suspended; thrit respondent No.2/complainant muSt be compensatei t() some extent pending disposal of th e Appeal. \ Therefore, re lying on the decision passed by the Horr,ble Apex Court in Sur'inder Singh Deswa @ Col.S.S.Deswa & Orthers Vs. Virender Gandhi and another2, the appellate Court rendered the impugner I orcler.

16. Having :egard to the submissions of learned counr;el for the petitioners arLd on considering the material available cn record, I I this Court is cf the view that the appeltate Court had suspended the direction rf payment of compensation amount, as irrLposed by the trial Court, by imposing appropriate conditions. He.nce, I do ' Criminal Appeal Nr). I 136- 1')63 of 2019 dated 08.01_2020; AIR 2020 SC 415 \ r I 6 (', not flnd any perversity or irregularity in the impugned order and this Revision is liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Case Nos. L279, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296 and 1297 of 2024 are dismissed. However, as sought for by the petitioners, in order to avoid delay in proceedings, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the petitioners, to comply with the respective impugned orders, within four (4) weeks, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The lV Additional Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri P Vishnuvardhani ReaOy, Advocate tOpUCI 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court forthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies ADl(PSL b ,E HIGH COUFIT DATED:02lct1l2O25 COMMON ORDER CRLRC.N os,1279, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295,1296 and 1297 ot 2024 /a1--.="': fY r ST( e c qj n1 APi ?[25 JJ A' t D is prtr( tt! \. DISMISSING ALLTHE CRLRCs @)sr0'e %\$