The present Appeals have been filed by the Appellants herein against the impugned order and judgment dated 17.04.2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Case Nos. Clause 8 of the Memorandum Of Understanding stated that the dispute was to be settled amicably, and in the event of the dispute still not being amicably resolved, it must be first referred to a sole Arbitrator. In such a circumstance, the Appellants cannot be convicted on the basis of the orders passed by the courts below, as the settlement is nothing but a compounding of the offence. At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compoundable.” This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. It is, however, kept open to the parties to settle their dispute as per the terms of the Memorandum Of Understanding.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/procedural-rigidity-and-quashing-of-detention-order/
Case Title: B V SESHAIAH Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA (2023 INSC 93)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000284-000284 / 2023
