| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1472
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : I.A. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2026 In&And Criminal Revision Case No. 799 of 2023 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO |
| Parties : Nagina Begum Versus Mohammad Fatimunisa & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Gulipali Suraj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP). |
| Date of Judgment : 10-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 & 401 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Negotiable Instruments Act
2. Catch Words:
- Compromise
- Settlement
- Acquittal
- Costs
- Revision
- Conviction
- Sentence
3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a criminal revision under §§ 397, 401 CrPC seeking to set aside the conviction affirmed by the appellate court. The petitioner and Respondent No.1 entered into a compromise, which was approved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. A joint memorandum confirming the settlement was filed. Consequently, the revision was disposed of as compromised, the earlier conviction and sentence were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted under § 320(8) CrPC. The court waived the payment of costs considering the petitioner's financial condition. All interlocutory applications, if any, were closed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Common Order
1. The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’), by the Petitioner/Accused seeking to set aside the judgment dated 21.06.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2020 by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, confirming the judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed in C.C.No.214 of 2019 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-Cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada at Vuyyuru.
2. I.A.No.1 of 2026 has been filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 seeking permission to compromise the case.
3. I.A. No. 2 of 2026 has been filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 seeking to record the compromise entered into between the Petitioner/Respondent No.1 and the Respondent/Respondent in the present case.
4. Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, reported no objection to record the compromise.
5. A Joint Memo has also been filed affixing the signatures of the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 as well as their respective Counsels. The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 have amicably settled the matter out of Court in terms of the mutual understanding arrived at between them.
6. In view of the settlement of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge-Cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada at Vuyyuru, in C.C.No.214 of 2017, dated 16.12.2019, as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2020, dated 21.06.2023, by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, are hereby set aside. Hence, the Petitioner/Accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a house wife and she has no independent income. Therefore, he prays that the Petitioner may be exempted from paying the 7.5% costs as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H ((2010) 5 SCC 663) observed that for compounding an offence under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Revisional Court, i.e., the High Court, the Petitioner is required to pay a certain amount towards costs. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain ((2014) 10 SCC 690) relaxed the rigor of the judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu supra and observed that in appropriate cases, matters can be compounded at the revision stage either on payment of minimal costs or by waiving the costs in suitable cases.
8. Considering the financial conditions of the Petitioner, the payment of costs is waived.
9. Accordingly, the I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 are allowed, and the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
|
| |
