logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1493 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : I.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2026 In&And Criminal Revision Case No: 237 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Parties : Pilli Sankari Rajya Lakshmi Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Its Public Prosecutor, Amaravathi
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S.A.V. Ratnam, Advocate. For the Respondent: J. Kusumavathi, Advocate, Public Prosecutor
Date of Judgment : 12-08-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438 read with 442 -
Judgment :-

Common Order

1. The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, "the BNSS"), by the Petitioner/Accused seeking to set aside the judgment dated 29.01.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No.236 of 2025 by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, confirming the judgment dated 26.06.2025 passed in C.C.No.1791 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 are present physically. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 are present through online.

3. I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 are filed seeking permission for the Petitioner to compound the offence with Respondent Nos.2 to 5, and the joint memo of compromise between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 to 5.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 submit that the Petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to Respondent Nos.2 to 5 towards full and final settlement. The cheque amount involved in the case is Rs.9,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the financial condition of the Petitioner is deplorable.

5. Mr.A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, reported no objection to record the compromise.

6. In view of the settlement of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 to 5, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as compromised. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajamahendravaram, in C.C.No.1791 of 2018, dated 26.06.2025, as confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.236 of 2025, dated 29.01.2026, by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, 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 female aged about 50 years 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.2 and 3 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.
 
  CDJLawJournal