Allowed

P.Dheerandra Reddy, v. N.G.Rama Moorthy

Telangana HC12 Sept 2014CRLA/932/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal under Section 378 CrPC challenging dismissal of complaint under Section 138 NI Act. Trial court dismissed due to non-payment of batta. Appellate court held complainant must be given opportunity to pay batta and hold accused liable for summons issuance.

What did the court decide?

Complaint in C.C.No.274 of 2003 restored to the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for issuing fresh summons.

P.Dheerandra Reddy, Vs N.G.Rama Moorthy — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.932 of 2008

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No representation on behalf of the second respondent/accused.

¶5

The complainant in C.C.No.274 of 2003 on the file of the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, preferred the present appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 05.12.2008 passed in the above C.C wherein the complaint filed against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act) was dismissed under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that notice issued to the accused on an earlier occasion was not served and even if the complainant paid batta notice could not have been served on the accused. He thus submits that the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the complaint due to non-payment of batta is incorrect.

¶7

The material placed on record would show that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant for his business necessities and in discharge of the same he issued two cheques bearing Nos. 001554 dated 22.08.2002 and 001555 dated 29.08.2002, drawn on Canara Bank, Narayanaguda Branch, Hyderabad, which when presented were returned for the reason “account closed”. After complying with the statutory requirements a complaint was filed on 24.10.2002. The said case was taken on file as C.C.No.274 of 2003. The order does not any where indicate that the complainant has failed to co-operate with the day today progress of the case. The trial Court instead of dismissing the complaint due to non-payment of batta, if any, ought to have given an opportunity to the complainant for payment of batta so as to issue fresh summons.

¶8

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that an opportunity should have been given to the complainant to pay batta and take steps for serving the summons on the accused.

¶9

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the complaint in C.C.No.274 of 2003 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is restored to its file.

¶10

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

¶11

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 12.09.2014 gkv

P.Dheerandra Reddy, v. N.G.Rama Moorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Dheerandra Reddy, v. N.G.Rama Moorthy

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

Redrouth Seetharamaiah, Vs The State of A.P.

Medapati VenkataLakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gujjarlapudi Vijayaraju

The United India Insurance Company Vs S.Kousar Tasneen

N. Purushotham s/o N. Sunkappa aged 30 years, ( A-2) Vs The State of a.p.

Shaik Kalesha , Kalelsha Vali Vs The State of A.P.