Dismissed

M/s. Apple Credit Corporation Ltd. ( a Company incorporated v. Neelakanteshwar Reddy K.

Telangana HC15 Feb 2012CRLA/1308/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act for failure to pay process funds. Court held that complainant's long delay without action invalidated the case, dismissing the appeal despite appellant's plea of vague order.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed against the dismissal of the complaint was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision.

M/s. Apple Credit Corporation Ltd. ( a Company… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1308 of 2004

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The appeal is filed against the dismissal of C.C.No.1260 of 2000 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad on 31.03.2004.

¶4

A case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted as a cheque for Rs.7,100/- issued by the accused is said to have been dishonoured. The case was taken on file and non-bailable warrants were issued on 30.05.2001 and on 31.03.2004 the complaint was dismissed under Section 204 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) for non-deposit of the non-bailable warrant process and forms.

¶5

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the lower Court does not speak any reasons and it is, therefore, not a proper dismissal.

¶6

He does not dispute about the power of the Court under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. to dismiss the complaint for non-payment of the process and evidently, non-bailable warrants will be issued by the Court below only on payment of the process.

¶7

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the orders does not speak about the neglect of the complainant in prosecuting the case and non-payment on earlier occasion, therefore, the dismissal of the complaint is not valid.

¶8

Evidently, after 30.05.2001, the docket does not show that the matter was posted for other days for payment of the process for issue of the non-bailable warrants and that the complainant has not paid the process for non-bailable warrant. It is true that the docket does not

¶9

disclose the above fact. But, at the same time, it is for the complainant to say as to when he has paid the process and when he has deposited the same after it was issued on 30.05.2001. In fact, the grounds of appeal does not show that after 30.05.2001 when the non-bailable warrants were ordered by the Court below, the process was deposited and forms were filed. If the complainant has complied with the order dated 30.05.2001, then there is every justification in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the order does not show that for subsequent period non-bailable warrants were not issued for non-payment of the process. But, even at the first instance itself, the process was not paid by the accused and not complied with it nearly for a period of three years. Hence, there is no point for in arguing that the order of the lower Court is vague. Therefore, it is a clear case where the complainant has not shown indulgence or interest and the Court below has rightly dismissed the complaint, which does not call for any interference.

¶10

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶11

________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶12

Date: 15-02-2012 MR

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶14

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1308 of 2004

¶15

DATE: 15-02-2012

¶16

M/s. Apple Credit Corporation Ltd. ( a Company incorporated v. Neelakanteshwar Reddy K.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Apple Credit Corporation Ltd. ( a Company incorporated v. Neelakanteshwar Reddy K.

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

The State of A.P. rep by Pp Vs Duggirala Gopalakrishna , Gopi

The Agricultural Market Committee Vs M/s.Gonuguntla Singaiah Cotton Trading Co,.

Drugs Inspector,Chirala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Vs P.Purnachandra Rao,Proprietor, Lister Pharmaceuticals

M.Appa Rao Vs Dukka Srinivasa Rao

M/s Tci Finance Ltd., Vs M/s Shanti Public School

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rafath Sulthana