Dismissed

Chandana Ramadevi, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC16 Feb 2012CRLP/4841/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash the trial Court's rejection of a petition for issuing summons to witnesses. The Court held that the petitioner had a duty to produce witnesses as per prior orders and thus the trial Court correctly dismissed the fresh summons petition. The Criminal Petition was dismissed with a direction for quick disposal of the underlying complaint

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the petition for summons to witnesses is not set aside; the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the C.C. within four weeks.

Chandana Ramadevi, Vs The State of A.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4841 OF 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order, dated 26-06-2009, in C.F.R. No.1094 of 2009 in C.C. No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalgiri, Guntur District, whereunder and whereby the petition to issue summons to the witness, was rejected.

¶5

2. Heard.

¶6

3. Husband of the 2^nd respondent filed the compliant against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On earlier occasion, the petitioner filed a petition in Criminal M.P. No.486 of 2008 for summoning two witnesses with regard to financial status of the deceased husband of the 2^nd respondent. The said petition was rejected by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.300 of 2009 before this Court. This Court by order, dated 01-05-2009, directed that the proposed witnesses shall be allowed to be examined, but the same must be completed within a period of two months from that date. As seen from the orders of this Court, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to bring the witnesses to examine. But instead of examining them, she filed a petition on 26-062009 to issue summons to the witnesses. That petition was rejected through the impugned order.

¶7

4. As per the orders of this Court, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to bring the witnesses. If the petitioner feels any difficulty in producing the witnesses, she ought to have requested this Court in Crl.P. No.300 of 2009 to issue summons to the proposed persons to be

¶8

examined as witnesses. It appears such a request has not been made at the time of hearing of Crl.P. No.300 of 2009. But, the petitioner, instead of producing the witnesses, filed a petition before the trial Court to issue summons to the witnesses. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the petition, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

¶9

5. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court shall dispose of the C.C. within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as the C.C. is of the year 2003 and the same was renumbered as C.C. No.6 of 2007 on transfer.

¶10

____________ K.C. BHANU, J

¶11

February 16, 2012 KTL

Chandana Ramadevi, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandana Ramadevi, v. The State of A.P.

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

Marri Gunavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Veeraiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thota Adinarayana Reddy Vs The State of Ap.

Tadiboina Firoz Babu, Vs Tadiboina Vijaya Kumari

Lakkaraju Satyanaranayana Murthy , Lsn Murthy Vs The State of Ap.

The Editior, Vs Bodi Malleswari