Allowed

P. Ravinder Reddy, v. Nalamalapur Subba Reddy

Telangana HC21 Mar 2013CRLP/5557/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition quashing a cheque dishonour case. The trial court violated Section 200 Cr.P.C. by taking the case on file based on a sworn affidavit without examining the complainant on oath, which is a mandatory prerequisite for registering a private complaint.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No.460 of 2009 was quashed, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

P. Ravinder Reddy, Vs Nalamalapur Subba Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

***** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶2

+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.5557 of 2010

¶3

%21.03.2013 # P. Ravinder Reddy

¶4

….Petitioner/Accused

¶5

Vs. $ Nalamalapur Subba Reddy and another. …. Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Maheswara Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri P.Veera Reddy. Counsel for respondent No.2: The Public Prosecutor.

¶6

<Gist :

¶7

>Head Note:

¶8

? Cases referred:

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5557 of 2010

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

There is no representation for the first respondent, although the first respondent entered appearance. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the case offends Section 200 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is entitled to acquittal.

¶12

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.460 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ongole for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The docket order, dated 04.12.2009, shows that the sworn statement of the de facto complainant was received and the case was taken on file under Section 138 of the Act. The docket thus evidently shows that the sworn statement of the de facto complainant was not recorded.

¶13

3. Section 200 Cr.P.C. envisages that before a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence on complaint,

¶14

he shall examine the complainant on oath. Thus, examination of the complainant is sine quo non for taking a private complaint on file. Admittedly, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate did not do so, but, accepted the sworn affidavit of the de facto complainant and had taken the case on file. As rightly submitted by Sri E.Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, taking the case on file by the learned Magistrate without recording the sworn statement of the complainant was violative of Section 200 Cr.P.C. and is not sustainable.

¶15

4. In that view of the matter, the criminal case is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. C.C.No.460 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ongole against the petitioner herein is quashed on the ground that the sworn statement of the de facto complainant/first petitioner had not been recorded by the trial Court. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

__________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J 21^st March, 2013 LR copy marked Tsy

P. Ravinder Reddy, v. Nalamalapur Subba Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ravinder Reddy, v. Nalamalapur Subba Reddy

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

Maddipoti Venkata Satya Ramu , M.v.S.Ramu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Satish Kumar Goud, Vs a. Anand Rao

A.Satish Kumar Goud Vs a.Anand Rao

Kavitha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Venkata Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Maheshwar Reddy, Vs Mr. Dr. Ram Krishna Prasad Housing Pvt. Ltd.