THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.Nos.967 AND 968 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: Since the petitioner and the respondents-accused in both these revisions are common and since the point involved in these revisions is one and the same, these two revisions are being disposed of by this common order. Both these criminal revision cases are filed against the judgments dated 29.06.2001 passed by the XI-Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in C.C.No.1772 of 1998 and 1905 of 1998 respectively. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents- accused issued four cheques with different dates for an amount of Rs.1,27,961/- each towards discharge of liability under hire purchase agreement to the revision petitioner- complainant and when the said cheques were presented for realization, the same were bounced with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the revision petitioner- complainant filed the complaints and the same were taken on file by the trial Court and numbered as C.C.Nos.1772 of 1998 and 1905 of 1998 respectively. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner- complainant P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P20 were marked to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D14 were marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the respondents- A1 to A6 in both the Calendar Cases guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-complainant filed the present revision petitions stating that the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondents-accused is insufficient and unsustainable in law. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-complainant, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondents-accused by the Court below is inadequate. In that view of the matter, this Court suggested the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-accused to get the offence compounded. In the light of the said suggestion, the parties have arrived at a compromise and the same was reduced into writing. The terms and conditions of the memorandum of compromise filed by both parties are as follows: “1. Criminal Revision Petitions No.967 of 2001 and 968 of 2001 have been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in C.C.Nos.1772 of 1998 and 1905 of 1998 respectively. 2. C.C.No.1772 of 1998 was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheque No.223954 dated 04.07.1998 for an amount of Rs.1,27,961/. C.C.No.1905 of 1998 was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheque Nos.223951, 223952, 223953 dated 04.04.1998, 04.05.1998, 04.06.1998 respectively for an amount of Rs.1,27,961/- each. 3. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad passed judgment in the above matters finding the respondents guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicting them under Section 255 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondents were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each in both C.C.Nos.1772 of 1998 and 1905 of 1998 by the Court below. As the arbitration award obtained by the petitioner covered the amount due under the dishonoured cheques, the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate held that there were no expeditious circumstances to award any separate compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. 4. The petitioner obtained an arbitration award (dated 10.7.2000) against the respondents 1 and 5 for an amount of Rs.3,59,817/- due as on 8.1.2000 and interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the above amount. The petitioner filed E.P.No.78 of 2009 before the Court of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for execution of the said award and the same is pending as on today. 5. With a view of amicably settle the disputes (including the arbitration award), the respondents offered to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner accepted the offer of the respondents towards full and final settlement of the amount due under the arbitration award and the compensation being claimed by the petitioner for dishonour of cheques in C.C.Nos.1772 of 1998 and 1905 of 1998. 6. The petitioner agrees to withdraw E.P.No.78 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking execution of the arbitration award and also agrees to withdraw Criminal Revision Petition Nos.967 and 968 of 2001 in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. The respondents have issued a demand draft No.019633 dated 25.08.2010 drawn in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of all the amounts due to the petitioner from the respondents. The same has been received by the petitioner”. After hearing the learned Counsel for both sides as well as both the parties, this Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the disputes amicably and the petitioner- complainant accepted an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of all the amounts due to the petitioner from the respondents-accused. In the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the compromise memo filed by both the parties is recorded. Both the Criminal Revision Cases are accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid memorandum of compromise. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 27-08-2010 Gsn.