Allowed

S.Venkata Ramana, v. The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC18 Oct 2012CRLP/1538/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash proceedings for cheque dishonour involving Model Chits Corporation Limited. Ruling that the settlement between parties was concluded despite the complainant's failure to finalize compounding, the Court deemed the offence compounded and continued proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.10 of 2004 registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were quashed.

S.Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1538 of 2010

¶3

October 18, 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

S.Venkata Ramana, S/o.S.V.V.K. Parvathalu And others

¶6

… Petitioners/

¶7

A1 to A4

¶8

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad And another

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1538 of 2010

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This Criminal Petition has been preferred by the petitioners/ A1 to A4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to quash proceedings in C.C. No.10 of 2004 (C.C) on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipathri, Ananthapur District registered for offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act)

¶13

Whereas the petitioners herein are A1 to A4, the second respondent herein is the complainant in the C.C. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the C.C.

¶14

The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

¶15

A1 is the Executive Director, A3 is the Managing Director, and A4 is the Chairman of Model Chits Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. It has several branches in the State of Andhra Pradesh. A2 is the Branch Manager of its Anantapur Branch. The complainant joined on 22.9.2001 in the chit vide reference No.TT-1-MA-12 for a value of Rs.15,00,000/- on monthly subscription of Rs.50,000/- for a period of 30 months. The complainant paid the first instalment of it apart from paying Rs.1,000/- towards membership under receipt No.9096, dated 22.9.2001. According to the complainant, on 28.6.2003 he participated

¶16

in the corresponding auction and became successful bidder for Rs.13,1,5,500/-, but it was not paid to him in spite of making repeated demands. However, A1 issued nine cheques for Rs.8,84,300/- in that context, but when the cheques were presented for collection, they were dishonoured with endorsement “Insufficient funds” in the corresponding account of the accused. Further thereafter statutory notice, under Section 138 of the Act was issued to pay the amount but A1 to A4 failed to comply with the notice.

¶17

Learned counsel for A1 to A4 has contended that after filing the case, there was settlement between A1 to A4 and the complainant to the effect that A1 to A4 should pay Rs.8,84,300/- towards the amount due and also Rs.15,000/- towards the costs of the complainant and immediately Rs.2,50,000/- was paid whereas the remaining amount was paid by way of the demand drafts. Consequently the complainant did not come forward to complete necessary formalities to compound the matter before the concerned court. A certified copy of the corresponding letter of undertaking signed by the complainant has been filed before the Court. The contents of the letter of undertaking said to be given by the complainant are in consonance with the claim made by the learned Counsel for A1 to A4.

¶18

Even though notice has been served upon the complainant, he has not made his appearance before this Court in person or through his advocate. Therefore, it is to be inferred that the complainant is admitting the claim made by A1 to A4 in the present petition.

¶19

The circumstances enumerated make it very clear that having given the said undertaking to settle the matter on receiving the amount covered by the demand drafts, the complainant stayed back without coming forward to complete the necessary formalities. The offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the Act. The conduct of the complainant in staying back is highly deprecated. However, in the circumstances of the case, it is to be deemed that the matter has been compounded. This is a case which can be considered under Section 482 Cr.PC to prevent the

¶20

abuse of process of law. Hence the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶21

For the reasons stated, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.10 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipathri, Anantapur Diustrict. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.

¶22

__________________________________ (G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶23

October 18, 2012 YS

S.Venkata Ramana, v. The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Venkata Ramana, v. The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor

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

Bommareddy Janardhan Reddy,A-3 Vs Inspector of Police, Cid, Rcc, Vijayawada

Bommareddy Janardhan Reddy,A-3 Vs Inspector of Police, Cid, Rcc, Vijayawada

Bommareddy Janardhan Reddy,A-3 Vs Inspector of Police, Cid, Rcc, Vijayawada

Sri Sairam Granites repby its Proprietrix Inturi Bhramaramba Vs M/s. Shriram City Union Fiance Ltd.

G.Lingam Vs Uppala Srinivas

Dr. Ch. Rama Krishna Prasad Vs T. Leela Mohan