Dismissed

Lucky Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Jan 2012CRLP/854/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition was filed to quash an order by the learned Magistrate permitting a complainant to mark an agreement in a cheque dishonour case. The Bench dismissed the petition as the petitioners had admitted their signatures in their case memo, negating the ground for quashing.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.854 of 2012 dismissed.

Lucky Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor, Vs The… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.854 of 2012

¶3

Date:2 4 th January, 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Lucky Enterprises rep. by its Prop:Manderapu Venkata Ramayya (A1) & Anr.

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶12

Criminal Petition No.854 of 2012

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This Criminal Petition has been taken out by A1 and A2 in C.C.No.77 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, to quash the order, dated 25.11.2011, passed in the said C.C.

¶15

2. The 2^nd respondent herein is the complainant in C.C.No.77 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. The 2^nd respondent filed the complaint against the petitioners herein alleging, inter alia, that the 1^st petitioner, representing the 2^nd petitioner, has issued a cheque for Rs.42,20,000/- towards arrears of transportation charges. On presentation, the said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reason of ‘insufficient funds’. The 2^nd

¶16

respondent issued the statutory notice to the petitioners herein. The petitioners received the notice on 15.12.2005 and sent a reply on 12.01.2006. The petitioners entered appearance in C.C.No.77 of 2006 and denied the accusations. Thereupon, the complainant commenced its evidence. During the course of evidence, the complainant tendered the certified copy of agreement, dated 30.04.2004. The petitioners raised objection for marking the said document. The learned Magistrate, on considering the objections raised by the petitioners and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to over-rule the objections and permitted the complainant to mark the certified copy of the agreement, dated 30.04.2004, by order, dated 25.11.2011. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said order.

¶17

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record.

¶18

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have specifically denied their signature in the agreement, dated 30.04.2004 and therefore, the learned Magistrate is not justified in observing that the signatures of the petitioners are undisputed.

¶19

5. I have gone through the memo filed by the petitioners herein in C.C.No.77 of 2006, copy of which has been placed on placed on record at page No.13 of the material papers. It is stated in the memo that the petitioners herein admitted of their signatures in the 1^st page of the agreement, dated 30.04.2004. Such is the memo., the observation made by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be without any basis. No valid ground has been made out to quash the order, dated 25.11.2011, passed in C.C.No.77 of 2006.

¶20

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶21

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶22

Date:24^th January, 2012. cs

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶24

Criminal Petition No.854 of 2012

¶25

Date:2 4 th January, 2012

Lucky Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucky Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor, 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

Bashu Shyam Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lokaiah Patel, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chukkapalli Amar Kumar, Vs Meka Radhika

Kharusi Ali Salim Ali Vs The State of Ap.,Through its Public Prosecutor

Kotha Srinivas , Ungrala Srinivas Vs State of Ap., through the Police CID Medak at

Ratna Infrastructure Products Pvt.Ltd., Vs M/s. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.