Dismissed

A. Puneetha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Nov 2022CRLRC/870/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision case, the High Court dismissed the revision against the order dismissing the petition for condonation of delay in filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that waiting for the accused to settle the matter was not a sufficient cause for the delay.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing the possession petition upon condonation of delay is affirmed, leading to dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.

A. Puneetha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.870 OF 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner/complainant, being aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1054 of 2019 in C.F.No.1074 of 2019, dated 19.4.2022 by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

¶5

A private complaint in C.F.No.1074 of 2019 was filed by the complainant/petitioner herein under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act along with a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1054 of 2019 under Section 142-B to condone the delay of 22 days in filing the said complaint. By an order dated 19.04.2022, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to show any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 22 days in presenting complaint.

¶6

¶7

Against the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on 2^nd respondent, there is no representation on his behalf.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that after receiving the statutory notice by the accused/respondent No.2 herein, he approached the complainant/petitioner herein and requested time for 15 days in order to settle the matter with her. Hence, the petitioner waited being under the impression that the accused will come and settle the matter. In view of the said reason, the petitioner could not approach her counsel immediately and file the complaint within the stipulated time. Hence a delay of 22 days occurred in filing the complaint against the accused/respondent No.2 herein. It is submitted that the delay is neither

¶10

¶11

wilful nor wanton except for the reason stated above, in

¶12

filing the complaint within stipulated time.

¶13

Section 142 (b) of the N.I. Act reads as follows;

¶14

“(b) such complaint is made within one month of

¶15

the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138: [Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.]”

¶16

The reason given by the complainant/petitioner

¶17

herein that the accused/respondent No.2 approached the complainant on receiving notice and he expressed that he would settle the matter amicably within a period of 15 days. The reason stated by the petitioner is so absurd since no prudent person would come to conclusion that the accused would settle the dispute and that he would not allow time to run beyond limitation period. According to Section 142B and its proviso of the N.I. Act, the Court can consider the plea of petitioner/complainant only on showing the sufficient cause. The sufficient cause can be the circumstances,

¶18

¶19

beyond the control of the complainant if any that have taken place. In this case, it is not so and the cause stated for the delay of 22 days is not at all sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing complaint under Section 138 r/w 142 of the N.I. Act.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶21

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶22

K. SREENIVASA REDDY,J

¶23

Date: 15.11.2022 GR

¶24

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶26

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.870 of 2022

¶27

Date: 15.11.2022 GR

A. Puneetha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Puneetha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pentapati Balaji Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dilip Kumar Jain Vs State of Ap.

Parvathaneni Raghu Prasad Vs J. Bhaskara Rao

Vasavi Pharam Market Complex Welfare Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinka Ashok Kumar at Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs Chinka Dhana Lakshmi

Dr. Reddi Shyamala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh