Allowed

Icfai University, v. Andrew Dutta

Telangana HC26 Feb 2013CRLP/1520/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the dismissal of a criminal complaint for default due to non-payment of process fee, holding that opportunity must be afforded to the petitioner. The complaint was restored to file for issuance of summons upon payment of the fee.

What did the court decide?

The dismissal order dated 21.10.2009 set aside; complaint restored to file; summons to be issued accused upon payment of process fee by petitioner.

Icfai University, Vs Andrew Dutta — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1520 of 2013

¶3

Dated: 26.02.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

ICFAI University, rep by its Law Officer Mr.Jugal Kishore Sharma

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Andrew Dutta and two others

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1520 of 2013

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State.

¶14

The complaint filed by the petitioner, which was taken on file as C.C.No.100 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 and 420 read with 34 of I.P.C., was dismissed on 21.10.2009 on the ground that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and also failed to pay the process fee. Against the said order, dated 21.10.2009, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.215 of 2009 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, seeking to set aside the order and to restore the complaint to file. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the said date, when the matter was called, he could not attend the Court as he was held up in traffic. However, the

¶15

learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said Revision Petition.

¶16

Admittedly, on two occasions i.e., on 16.01.2009 and 18.04.2009 the petitioner deposited the process fee and summons were issued, but they were returned with an endorsement ‘door locked’.

¶17

From the events, which ultimately resulted in dismissal of the complaint, it would appear that the petitioner paid process fee twice, but the summons could not be served. Only on 21.10.2009, the petitioner was absent and as there was no representation and the complaint was dismissed for default. The learned Sessions Judge ought not to have confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate in revision. Both the Courts below should have afforded opportunity to the petitioner to pay the process fee by restoring the complaint to file.

¶18

Therefore, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the dismissal order, dated 21.10.2009 passed by the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was confirmed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Criminal Revision Petition No.215 of 2009, is set aside. The complaint is restored to file and the learned Magistrate is directed to issue summons to the accused in the said complaint on payment of process fee by the

¶19

petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶21

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶22

___________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 26^th February 2013 mar/VV

Icfai University, v. Andrew Dutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icfai University, v. Andrew Dutta

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

Mohd Ahmed Ali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Abdul Gafoor Vs The State of A.P.

Challa Venkata Rami Reddy , Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Venubabu, Vs The State of A.P.

Donga Adi Lakshmi Vs State

B.Rajendra Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh