HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1984 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner-complainant filed this revision questioning the docket order dated 22.10.2010 in C.C.No.993 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The docket Order dated 22.10.2010 reads as under: “Complainant present. Accused absent. Petition filed and allowed. This case is coming for complainant evidence from 4.12.2008. I see no reason to grant further time. Hence, the complainant evidence is closed. For 313 Cr.P.C. examination call on 28.10.2010.” The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that five private complaints have been filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same were numbered as C.C.Nos.965, 966, 967, 968 and 993 of 2006 and are pending before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and that after service of notices, the respondents have come forward stating that they will pay the cheque amounts and accordingly, they paid certain amounts, on the basis of which, the petitioner-complainant withdrew C.C Nos.967 and 968 of 2006 and because of the assurance given by the respondents, the petitioner-complainant sought for time, but the Court below has taken a serious view and closed the evidence of the petitioner-complainant and posted the case for examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. I find force in the said submission. The persons like the complainants want the money back, but they never want the accused to be sent to jail. Further, the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable. As the said explanation offered by the Counsel for the petitioner is acceptable, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to lead evidence. Hence, the said docket order dated 22.10.2010 is hereby set aside. As it is a case of the year 2006, the petitioner- complainant shall decide as to whether he wants to proceed with the case or to settle the matter. If the petitioner-complainant decides to proceed with the case, he shall examine himself as P.W.1 and other witnesses, if any, and shall co-operate with the Court below for early disposal of the case. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. ______________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 7.2.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1984 OF 2010 7.2.2011