THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.509 of 2002 ORDER: This criminal revision case is directed against the order passed by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad refusing to discharge the petitioner in C.C.No.2272 of 1998. Brief facts are that there were certain business transactions between the petitioner and the respondents and in that context a promissory note was executed and a cheque was also issued. When the said cheque was presented in the Bank, the same was dishonoured. Therefore, the second respondent herein filed a complaint under XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’), and the same was numbered as C.C.No.2272 of 1998. As stated supra, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 203 Cr.P.C., seeking discharge, and the same was dismissed. Hence this revision case. While admitting the revision, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings by order dated 17.06.2002. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the first respondent instituted Special Civil Suit No.258 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Aurangabad, on the basis of the promissory note that has been executed by the petitioner herein. After notice, the petitioner entered into appearance in the said suit and there was a compromise between the parties. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the entire amount as agreed upon. In the light of the said compromise entered into by the parties, the suit was decreed by the Senior Civil Judge, Aurangabad, on 9.08.2005, in terms of the said compromise. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since compromise has been entered into between the parties and the entire cheque amount and other amounts have been paid, this revision does not survive. Though notices are sent to the respondents, the same were returned un-served. When this Court looked into the memorandum of compromise entered into between the parties before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in Special Civil Suit No.258 of 2000, it is noticed that the litigation was between M/s.Videocon International Limited vs. Liberty Corporation and ors., whereas, the complaint is against M/s. Sujana Corporation Limited and the chairman and managing director of the M/s. Sujana Corporation. As there is variation in the names, this Court looked into the complaint allegations. In paragraph No.3 of the complaint it is stated that accused No.1- company was earlier running in the name and style of M/s. Liberty Granites Limited and subsequently the name was changed as M/s. Sujana Corporation Limited. From the above narration, it is clear that the accused in C.C.No.2272 of 1998 are none other than the said M/s. Liberty Granites Limited and its Chairman and Managing director. The compromise entered into was in between M/s. Videocon International Limited and M/s. Liberty Granites Limited. In the light of the said compromise entered into between the parties, this Court is satisfied that the said Liberty Corporation and the accused herein are one and the same. Hence this Court is of the view that there is no meaning to continue the said proceedings pending against the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as accused No.3 in C.C.No.2272 of 1998. Having regard to the fact that a compromise has been entered into between the parties and the cheque amount and other amounts as agreed by the petitioner have been paid, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the petitioner is discharged from the proceedings in C.C.No.2272 of 1998, as provided for under Section 203 Cr.P.C. _________________________ (GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J.) 12th August, 2010. Js.