Vanapalli Yesu Prabhu vs Alluri Surya Chandrudu & Ors.

T Mallikarjuna Rao, J

I.A.No.1 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking to permit the petitioner/accused and the respondent No.1 to compromise and to allow the present Criminal Revision Case by compounding the offence against the petitioner in C.C.No.245 of 2009 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

The complainant (1st respondent) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the accused, exploiting their acquaintance, borrowed Rs.30,000/- on 15.12.2006 citing an emergency, and assured repayment with 36% interest per annum within two months. Accordingly, the complainant issued self-cheque No.225244 dated 15.12.2005 for Rs.65,000/-, drawn on Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Visakhapatnam, which the accused encashed without executing any promissory note or written acknowledgment. Despite repeated demands, the accused issued cheque No.804993 dated 10.03.2007 for Rs.30,000/-, drawn on SBI, Madhurawada Branch, Visakhapatnam, requesting it be presented after June 2007. The cheque was presented on 06.07.2007 and returned unpaid on 07.07.2007 with the endorsement "Insufficient Funds." A legal notice demanding payment was issued on 23.07.2007, but was returned as "Not Claimed".

After considering the material as well as evidence on record, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam [for short, “the Trial Court”] vide Judgment dated 23.02.2010 in C.C.No.245 of 2009, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, and the accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.35,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two (02) months. Of the fine amount, Rs.30,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., after the expiry of the appeal period.

Aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 23.02.2010 in C.C.No.245 of 2009 passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant/Accused preferred an Appeal in Crl.A.No.56 of 2010 on the file of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, “the 1st Appellate Court”) challenging the correctness of the Judgment passed by the Trial Court. By judgment dated 28.06.2011, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant/Accused by the Trial Court. Pursuant to the impugned judgment, the Petitioner/Accused preferred the present Revision Case.

I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the petitioner/accused and the 1st respondent/complainant appeared in person and were identified by their respective counsel. The terms of the compromise, as detailed in the affidavit, were read out and acknowledged as true and correct by all parties. As per the Joint Memo, the complainant stated that the matter has been amicably settled out of court, and the full cheque amount has been paid, and he has no objection to allow the present revision.

The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only), as directed, towards compounding fee to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati through Demand Draft No.631346, dated 24.09.2025, and the receipt has been submitted to the Court.

Pursuant to the compromise recorded in I.A.No.01 of 2022, it is stated that both parties have resolved their differences by entered into a Memorandum of compromise. Accordingly, there is no necessity to prosecute the Accused, and the Complainant has no objection to close the case against the Accused.

Upon being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the compromise, and in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, I.A.No.1 of 2022, is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by setting aside the judgment dated 28.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.56 of 2010 on the file of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, which had confirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, dated 23.02.2010 in C.C.No.245 of 2009. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged.

Interim orders passed earlier, if any, shall stand vacated and consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.