G.V. Subramanyam v. G. Badrinath
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P.KESHAVA RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-14. G.V. Subramanyam v. G. Badrinath. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IVONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO l. A. No. 2 of 2020 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1488 of 2019 Criminal Revision case under Section 397 and 401 of Cr. P. C against the Judgment in Crl. A. No. 206 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the lll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad Preferred against the order in C. C. No. 84 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the XIV Special lrlagistrate, Hyderabad. Between: G. V. Subramanyam, S/o. G. N. Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Plot No. 1 25, Kakatiy a Na ga r, Nered ment, Secundera bad. ... PETITIONERYAPPELLANT/ACCUSED NO. 3 AND 1. G. Badrinath,S/o. G. V. Chalapathy,Agedabout49years,Occ: Business,R/o. '1- 'l-466, Flat No. 502, Surya lMeridian, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2.
State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Jud icature at Hyderabad ... RESPONDENT 3 M/s. Divinit Beverages P! 4. Ltd. , Rep. by its Director Mr. R. N. V. Venkatesh Babu, S/o, R. N. It/urthy, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, Rlo. 1-2-4541211 , West Venkatapuram, Secunderabad. 4. R. N. V Venkatesh Babu, S/o. R. N. I\,4urthy, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, Rlo. 1-2-4541211 , West Venkatapuram, Secunderabad. Respondents No. 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to this Criminal Revision Petition. ... RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED No. 1 & 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision case, the High Court may be pleased to extend the time for two weeks more for depositing an amount of 30% as per the orders dt. 06. 01. 2020 passed in l. A. No. 03 of 2019 in Crl. R. C. No. 1488 of 2019. lA NO: 2 OF 2020 G. Badrinath, S/o. G. V.
Chalapathy, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Bustness, R/o. 1-1-466, Flat No. 502, Surya lvleridian, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND 1. G. V. Subramanyam, S/o. G. N. Rao, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, Fl/o. Plot No. 125, Kakatlya Nagar, Neredment, Secunderabad. ... RESPONDENT No. 1/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 3 2. State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad 3. M/s. Divinit Beverages Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. by its Director R. N,V. Venkatesh Babu, S/o. R. N. Ir/urthy, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, Rlo. 1-2-4541211 , West Venkatapuram, Secunderabad. 4. R. N. V. Venkatesh Babu, S/o. R. N. Murthy, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, No. 1-2-4541211 , West Venkatapuram, Secunderabad. Respondents No. 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to this Criminal Revision Petition. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.
C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision case, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner and the Respondent to compound the offence in so far as the RespondenUPetitioner/Accused No. 3 in concern by setting aside the conviction and acquit the Respondent/Petitioner/Accused No. 3 is concern for the offences under section 138 N. l. Act passed in judgment dated 1 1. 02. 2016 tn CC No. 84 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble XIV Special [t/agistrate, Hyderabad which was confirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 06th August, 20'19 passed in Crl. A. No. 206 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble lll Addl. l\,4etropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. These Revision Petition and Application coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri lr/alipeddi Srrnivas Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner in Crl. R. C. and Respondent No. 1 in l. A. No.
2 of 2020 and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 in both Crl. R. C. and l. A. No. 2 of 2020 and of Sri P. Shashi Kiran, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 in Crl. R. C. and Petitioner in l. A. No. 2 o'f 2020. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER r- HONOLRABLIL SRI JUSTIC[ P. KESHAYA RAO I. A. No. 2 ol'2020 IN/A\D ( RI\ll\ \t- ltE\:ISIO\ ('. {SE \o. l-l8fl of 2til9 coltltoN oRpER: l. A. No. 2 ol 1020 is filed b1' the first respondenricourplainanr pra) ing this Cor-rlt to contpound the otl'cncc pr-rnishable under Secrion 138 o1' the Ncgotiable Instruntents r\ct and acclr-rit the petit ioner/accused No. i b-"" settin_q aside tlte sentcnce ancl imprisonment irnposed in Crl. A. No. 206 o1'2016 dated 06. 08. 20i9 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confinning the judgment in C. C. No. 84 of 2014 dated I1. 02. 2016 on the file of XIV Special Magistrate, H1'derabad. This Court on 01 . 12.
2020 directed the parlies to appear before the Registrar (Judicial) on 08. 12. 2020 lbr their identification and the I{r-gistrar (. lLrdicial) thcrcatlc'r sltall sr,rhrnit a report to that cltLct br l. i. 11. 2020. In conrpliarrce riith the abovc said order, thc palties along riith their lcspective coLrnscl appeared betbre thc Registrar' (. luclicial ). ri'ho. in tuln, has identifled them rvith ref-erence to their aadhal cards and tlled a report to that eil'ect. The learncd counsel als<r signed orr the aadhar cards oltheir respective clients. Having exarnined the report of the Registlar (Judicial) of this Couft and the averments made in the alfidavit filed in support of I. A. No. 2 of 2020 and the joint memo filed by both parties, LA. No. 2 of 2020 is allowed In vielr, of thc orclers passed in l. A. No. l o1'1020. the serrtence and imprisonmcnt imposed in Crl. A. No. l()6 ol'1016 dated 06. 08. 20 11) on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Ju<lqe.
Hyderabad, confirming the judgment in C. C. No. 84 of 2014 dated 11. 02. 2016 on the file of XIV Special Magistrate. I{1,delabad, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is dilected to pay l0%o of the cheque amount to the High Coun Legal Services Cornmittee, Hyderabad, rvithin a period of six rveeks fiom today ancl produce the receipt befbre the Registrar (Judicial). Failr-rre to comply rvith the above said order, the order passed in this criurinal revision case autontaticall) stands vacated , Accoldingly. the crinrinal revision casc is clisposed ot. \ Iiscc-l Ianeous pL'titions. i 1' anr . shaII sllitcl cIoscil. vABUl sD/- c. v. MALLIKARJUNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 ',f# ;'''TIl' 2 ]'l"ll il :":'::: tk? r lrs;rtifl 3, i[: t 9. :# fl "j' "' "' e I a n a n a a t 4. J8f t : m l: I' If 3'3? 3,1 or r s i [ ? P"'. :3J,[ i' T[3" ttS',lS *IS"JS P u cl to 6 I","3i" Puxliftsisr ff 7 B ft! :g. j [i*;yihxr ltilemo) (Along with Joint N/P \.
)-- HIGH COURT DATED:141'1212020 COMMON ORDER l. A. No. 2 ot 2020 f HE slA IN/AND k o^ .. \ CRL. R. C. No. 1488 of 201 9 c 190[c lmt, t c ,-/;, * * , rt9 SP,,1TC ALLOWING THE I. A. NO. 2 OF 2O2O AND DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE. ft IIIGI-I C0UI{T OIT JUDICATUI{I| FOR TIIB STA'I'E OI. ''IELAN(;ANA AT IIYI)ER,1. I},\D W; :lbtu Crl. R. C. No. 1,186 of 2019 Between: G. V. Subramanyam ...... Petitioner/Petitioner AND G. Badrinath and others Respondents/Respondents AFFIDAVI'I'FII,ED BY'tHE RESPQNDENT NO 1 I, C. Badrinath S/o G. V. Chalapathy, Alied abour 49 years, Occ: Business, R,,o t,lar \C) 201 , Ambika Apartments, Panduranga NIagar, Hindupur', Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh temporarily cante down to Hydi:r'abad do hereby solemrrly alfirm ancl stncercll state on oath as follows 1. I submit that I am the Respondent NO t herein and as such I am u'ell acquainled rl'irh thc I I facts of the case.
2 I submit that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06th August, 2019 passed in Crl. A. No. 206 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in confirming the judgment dated 1 1 . 02. 2016 in C. C. No. 84 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble lilV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad the present revision is filed. I subrnit lhat rvhen the above matter canie up lor hearing. this l{on'ble CoLrrt by arr orcler dated 06. 01. 2020 in I. A. No. 3 of 2019 was pleased to direct nre to clel. losit 30'70 ol-tlre 'l fine amount as imposed by the rial Corrrt within a period of six r. veeks f lom the date ot the order ! . 1 I submit tl. rat during the pendency o1'thc abovc Criminal Revisic. rn Case. rnyse ll itnd thc Petitioner had deliberation and our fanrily f'riends had also intervened and advised us to reconcile our dilferences amicable.
Further after much deliberations, nryseJf and thc- Petitioner had reached a settlement and as per the terms of settlement Petitioner is required to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Tluee Lakhs Only) to me towards f. il\ and final settlement of all our disputed hetween myself and the Petitioner. Further the I had agreed that alter receiving the said sum would cooperate with the Petitionel to contpound tlie oflence in so far as Petitioner case is concern by filing necessary petitions before this Hon'ble Court. I lurther submit that today i. e. on 18. 02. 2020 Petitioner had obtained Deurand Drafi vidc number 081 152 drawn on HDFC Bank, Banjara Hills Branch for a sunr o{'Rs. 3. 00. 000r-only (l{upees Three Lakhs Only) in nry 1:n our'. Further, as a part of settlcnlent, Petitioner had handed over thc said Demand Dralt to me fbr rvhich I acknorvledgcd the same.
6 I further submitted that it was specilically admitted between nryscll and the Petitioner that I would encash the aforementiorir:d Denrand Draft lor a sum of Rs. 3,00,000i- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) only after closure of the above Criminal Revision Case i. e. after recording the compromise in this IJon'ble Court. 7 Further, in view ol the settlement arrived between the parties, it is prayed that the Petitioner conviction under Section 138, N. l. Act passed in judgment dated 1 1. 02. 2016 in C. C. No. 84 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble XIV Special Magistrate, I-lyderabad which was confirmed by the Appellate Court videjudgment dated 06'h August. 20l9 passed in Crl. A. No. 206 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble III Addl. Metropolitarr Sessions Judge. I Iyderabad is set aside and the Petitionr:r may be acquitted of the chalges under Section 138 of the N. l. Act.
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Coufl nlay be plcased to permit the Petitioner and the Respondent No 1 to compound the offence in so far as the Petitioner/Accused No. I is concern by setting aside the conviction and acquit the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 is concem for the ol'fences under Section 138, N. l, Act passed in judgrnent dated 11. 02. 2016 in C. C. No. 84 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble XIV Specral Magistrate, Hyderabad which was confinned by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 06rl' August, 2019 passed in Crl. A. No. 2(t6 of 2016 on the file of the Llon'ble ill Addl. ,rr- Metropolitan Sessions J,dge, Hyderabad in the interest ofjustice a,d pass such orhcr order or orders deem flt and proper. in tlre interest ofjustice. Solemnly alfirmed and sicned on this the l8'r' day of February, 2020 I)ONENT at Hyderabad Br:tble Advoc derabad v -b'rs III(;H C()Ur{t 0I:,ttrt)t(,\'t Ut{Ii Fot,t'fHE S I",\'l tit ()F'II _.. \N(;{\. \ AT II Y I) I' I{. \ BA I) ( rl. lt. C. \o.
I Jtl6 of 201 9 ce n : Subllnranvanr Pe I it ionc r Iladlinath ancl ot lrcrs Ilesponrlcrts ,_\t() ' . lol\-l- \ [tLED t]\''ntE I'l. ', ()\t_I{ _\\l) l ispo\l)1,. \'t \ ()l It is subrritted that being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06'h August, 2019 passed in Crl. A. No. 206 of 2016 on tlie file olti:e Ilon'ble III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in confirming the judgrnent dated 11. 02. 2016 in C. C. No. 84 of 2014 on the file of the Flon'ble XIV Special Magistrrrte, IJyderabad the present revision is flled. It is subnritted that rvhen the above lratrer carne up for hearing, this Hon'ble Coufi by an ordel dated 06. 01. 2020 in I. A. No. 3 ,;f 2019 \\,as pleased to clirect the Petitioner lo deposit 30% of the fine an. rolurt as inrposed by the Trial Court within a period of si\ rveeks fion tlrs date o1'1lrc order It is sLrbmitted that cluling tire pende:rcl ol thc rbove Crinrinal [{evision ( ase.
l'elitioner' and the Responilcnt No I harl deliberation and lirnily liiends had also irrtelvencd und advised them to reconcile their differences amicable. Further after nruch delrberations. Petitioner and the Respondent No t had reachcd a settlenrent and as per the ternrs ol' settlement, Petitioner is required to pa) a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) to the Respondent No I towards l'ull and final settlement of all their disputes between Petitior. rer and the Respondert No l. Furtlier the Respondent No I atier receiving the said sum woulcl cooperate rvith the Petitioner to compound the oflence in so far as Petitionel case is concem by filing rlecessary petitions before this LIon'ble Courr. It is further subnritted that todav i. e. on 1l'i. 02. 2010 Petitionel had obtained Denrancl l)r'lli vidc number' 0tlI152 drari'n on III)F(' Ilanli. Ilrnjala llills R:anch lirr iL sLtnt ol Ils. -1. 00,000/- onl;- (Rupees Ihrcc I-rkhs Orrlr ) in luvoLrr ol the I{espontlcttl ,r-o l.
[:Ltrtlte r'. . -<. as a part of settlcmcnt. Pctitioner had handed over tlte said Demancl ' ,1i to the Ilespondcnt No l. rvhich rvas dr. rll'acknt:sleclgccl b1'hirlt. It is lurther subrnittecl that it \\'as sp:cilica)11 aclnrittc-rl betrrcen l'ctitii,trel rtttti llte I{espondcnt No I that the Respondent ll0 I rrould elcash the albrcurentionctl Det. nanrl Drali lbr a sunr of t{s. i. 00. 0001- (Rup,:es l'hrec Lnkhs ()nly ) onlr altcr closurc ol tltc above Criminal l{cr. ision Case i. c. alicr rccoldins thc conrplomisc in this l{on ble ('ourt. 6 Further, in view of tlie settlement arrived between the parties, it is prayed that Petitoner conviction under Section 138, N. l. Act passed in jLrdgment dated I 1. 02. 20 l6 in C. C'. No. 84 of 2014 on the flle of the Hor. r'ble XIV Special Magistlate. Hyderabad which uas confirmed by the Appellate Court vide iudgment dated 06(r' August, 2019 passed in Crl. A. No. 206 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble III Addl.
Metropolitan Sessions Judgc, Hyderabad is set aside and Petitioner lucy be acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the N. l. Act. (]ourt Thcrefore, it is prayed that this [{on'ble may be pleased to pennit thc l'etitioncr and the l{espondcnt to conrpound thc ollence in so lar as thc Petitioncr'1r\ccusccl No. I is conccrn bv setting aside the conricticl irncl acquit thc Petitioncrr',,\ccrrsed No. i is conccrn lbr the olfences under Scction 1i8. N. l. Act passccl in iudgnrent rlated 1). 02. 2016 in C. C. No. 84 o1'2014 on the illc o1'the Ilon'ble XI\/ Special \lagistrate. FIyde rabad whicli was confirnied by the Appellate Court vicle rlated . judgmcnt 0(rtr' August, 2019 passed in Crl. A. No. 206 of 2016 on the file of the llon'ble III Addl. Metropolitan Sessior. rs Judge, Hyderabad in the ir. rterest of justice and pass such other ordcr or orders deem fit and proper in thc interest ofjustice. Hence this Joint Memo. A Yt---=: Place: I lydcrabad PI]TIT IO. NER Date: 19. 02.
2020 a-, ttl:SI'ONI)L. \1 r.. o \ COLINSII I I'I'IONER COUNSI] DlrN-l No I
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.