Dismissed

Damerla Siva Krishna Chaitanya, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Mar 2024CRLP/1794/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. Court held that submission on limitation delay was covered by Apex Court judgment and allegation of cheque theft was a factual aspect for trial court, not for quashing. Ordered petitioner to represent via counsel for unavailability.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition for quashing proceedings under Section 138 NI Act disposed of. Transfer of petitioner to trial court on counsel for absence.

Damerla Siva Krishna Chaitanya, Vs The State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

■S’ V-. 'i,‘4*

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

WEDNESDAY. THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1794 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

Damerla Siva Krishna Chaitanya, S/o. Durga Prasad Aged 37 years. Hindu, R/o. Flat No. 402, Kingston Apartment. Block - 2, Pragathi Nagar, Hyderabad - 500072.

¶10

...Petitioners

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi.

¶13

Tanguturu Raja, S/o. Allabakash. Aged 35 Years, Muslim, R/o. Dr. No. 16/195, Nadimpalli Street. Proddutur Town. Kadapa District.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in C.C.No. 129/2021 on the file of the Court of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class Proddutur and quash the same against the petitioner herein.

¶16

‘31

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V S K^gia Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public^Prosecutor on ^ < ^, .j^#^|theV ‘• Respondent No.1 and of Sri Syed Kaleemulla,^Advocatefor i- i ■X■X :r: Tthe RbspiSondent No.2

¶18

-Th&Gburt made the following;

¶19

<54%

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1794 OF 2021

¶23

Between-’

¶24

l.DAMERLA SIVA KRISHNA CHAITANYA, S/0. DURGA PRASAD, AGED 37 YEARS, HINDU, R/0. FLAT. NO. 402, KINGSTON APARTMENT. BLOCK - 2, PRAGATHI NAGAR, HYDERABAD - 500072.

¶25

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶26

AND

¶27

l.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI.

¶28

2.TANGUTURU RAJA, S/0. ALLABAKASH, AGED 35 YEARS, MUSLIM, R/0. DR. NO. 16/195, NADIMPALLI STREET, PRODDUTUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶29

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶30

Counsel for the petitioner/s • Sri V.S.K.Rama Rao Counsel for respondent No.l • Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri Syed Kaleemulla

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Code”) is filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.129 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddutur for the offence punishable^underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶33

¶34

¶35

Heard Sri V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned counsel for Respondent No.l. Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance.

¶36

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation.^Itisalso stated that the Petitioner herein lodged a complaint against Respondent No.2 herein alleging that the subject cheque^hasbeen stolen by Respondent No.2 i.e., Crime No.872 of 2005. Hence, the case is not maintainable against the Petitioner.

¶37

Contrasting the same, learned counsel for Respondent^No.2 would submit that complaint has been filed ten days beyond the period of limitation i.e., 30 days from the date of receipt of. information about dishonour of the cheque from the^Bankandin the light of the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Chokkapula Eswar Rao Vs Badireddy Surya Narayana and Another^, the period of limitation is same even otherwise the Court has every authority to look into that aspect that itself cannot be considered as a ground for quashment of the case against the Petitioner.

¶38

Considering the submissions made, as rightly put by learned counsel for Respondent No.2, in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Petitioner is supposed^to file a

¶39

'2020(l)ALD(Crl) 274 A.P.

¶40

¶41

¶42

complaint on 07.09.2020 but it was filed on 17.09.2020,^whichis clearly covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Coming to the next point i.e., the allegation that Respondent No.2 has stolen the cheque. The truth or otherwise of the^sameisnot within the purview of this Court to conduct a min-trial,^while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the^Code.Asitis a factual aspect of the matter, the Petitioner is at liberty to raise such grounds in his defence before the trial Court.

¶43

At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner^would submit that Petitioner is resident of Hyderabad, the Court may direct the trial Court to dispense his presence for every adjournment.Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 made objection on this point.

¶44

can 7. Considering the submissions made, the Petitioner represent through his counsel on the dates when he may not be available before the trial Court, due to any sufficient personal reasons.

¶45