P. Sridevi vs The State of Telangana and Others

Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J—The petitioner is accused in C.C. No. 159 of 2009 on the file of XIV Additional Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, where the learned Magistrate taken cognizance under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the accused guilt for the dishonour of cheque and sentence to undergo 4 months simple punishment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed Crl.A. No. 26 of 2012. It appears that fine amount was paid and sentence was suspended by application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. Pending appeal in the year 2014, the petitioner-accused filed an application before the lower appellate Court in Crl.M.P. No. 243 of 2014 as can be seen from the petition. The prayer therein is that there is a Supreme Court judgement as per which he is ready to pay the cheque amount with compensation to close the appeal. In fact, in the expression of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010 SC 1907 : (2010) 3 BC 110 : (2010) 159 CompCas 1 : (2010) CriLJ 2860 : (2010) 4 SCALE 568 : (2010) 5 SCC 663 : (2010) AIRSCW 3739 : (2010) AIRSCW 2929 : (2010) 4 Supreme 149 : (2010) 3 Supreme 547 , it was held that at the initial stage for compounding under Section 147 of N.I Act permission for compounding can be granted. If it is during or even at the end of trial, on payment of some compensation the permission can be accorded. There are certain scales given at different stages including at the stage of appeal High Court as well as before the Supreme Court. It is not even the case of the petitioner to say that the de facto complainant is ready to compound on receiving the cheque amount to accept pursuant to that expression to close the appeal proceedings by compounding. If there is no application under Section 147 of N.I Act, the application Crl.P.M.P No. 243 of 2014 filed is nothing but abuse of process. The learned Sessions Judge instead of dismissing by imposing costs asked the learned counsel for appellant to submit arguments for the appeal itself be decided, which is now impugned.

In fact needless to repeat that the petition is nothing but abuse of process, thereby it is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Hence the appeal needs to be taken up for disposal by the learned Judge. It is needless to say the principal laid down by the Apex Court in Bani Singh and ohters Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439 : (1996) CriLJ 3491 : (1996) 3 Crimes 54 : (1996) 6 JT 287 : (1996) 5 SCALE 126 : (1996) 4 SCC 720 : (1996) 3 SCR 247 Supp referring to Sections 386 and 390 Cr.P.C., the lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the arguments if parties/counsel appear and submit, else by taken as heard on own merits. It is further directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible being the appeal of the year, 2012.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.