THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.458 of 2010 Dated:09.07.2010 Between: Godaba Venkata Krishna Rao .. Petitioner And V.Vinay Sagar and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.458 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/complainant against order dated 05.03.2004 passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2003, by which the lower appellate Court recorded the compromise and passed the following order: “In case, the appellant complies with the terms of the compromise as agreed, he stands acquitted for the offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act and in case, he fails to comply with the said terms of compromise, he shall undergo the sentence imposed by the trial Court as it is. The fine amount paid by the appellant if any shall be refunded to him after 15.05.2004 in case, the appellant complies with the terms of the compromise.” 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that such alternative order is not permissible by law. It may be noted that the order was not passed on merits, but by recording compromise between the parties. The compromise was a conditional compromise, the condition being payment of certain amounts mentioned in the memorandum of compromise. There is no prohibition pointed out by the petitioner’s counsel for passing such order in law. 4. It is stated that subsequently the first respondent/accused did not comply with the condition in the compromise memo by way of making payment. Thereupon, the petitioner/complainant filed a memo before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, reporting that condition regarding payment is not complied with. Thereupon, the Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant against the first respondent/accused. The accused preferred Criminal Petition No.2872 of 2004 against issuing of non-bailable warrant by the Magistrate against him. By order dated 11.10.2004 in Criminal Petition No.2872 of 2004, this Court quashed non-bailable warrant issued against the accused by the Magistrate; and directed the Magistrate to make enquiry with regard to the allegations made in the memo by the complainant, before passing orders thereon. The petitioner’s counsel states that there is no information with regard to any orders passed after enquiry by the Magistrate thereafter. In this Revision Case filed against the compromise order passed by the lower appellate Court, it may not be relevant to go into the events subsequent to the order in Criminal Petition No.2872 of 2004. Suffice it to say that the petitioner/complainant who is party to the impugned order on compromise in the lower Court cannot be allowed to question the same by way of this Criminal Revision case. 5. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 09.07.2010 KH