Dismissed

R.S.Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Jun 2014CRLP/684/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a thin order, Justice S. Ravi Kumar dismissed the criminal petition seeking to quash a cheque-bounce complaint, observing that the impugned complaint was no longer pending and directing the petitioner to agitate grounds before the trial court subject to a pending revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is dismissed with an observation that the petitioner can agitate grounds before the trial court subject to the result of a pending revision.

R.S.Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

MONDAY THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 684 OF 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

R.S.Murthy … Petitioner/Accused

¶8

V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant

¶9

Counsel for Petitioner : Sri J.M. Naidu Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor

¶10

The court made the following : [order follows]

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶12

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 684 OF 2012

¶13

O R D E R :

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash CC.No. 310 of 2011 on the file of V I Special Magistrate Court, Hastinapuram, Ranga Reddy district.

¶15

2. Heard both sides.

¶16

3. The main argument of advocate for petitioner is that complaint is not filed within the statutory period of limitation and as the complaint was filed on 24/09/2009 which is the period of fifteen days from the date of return of un-claimed registered notice. He further submitted that there is a discrepancy with regard to account number mentioned in the cheque which does not belong to the petitioner. He further submitted that there is no legally enforceable debt to pay the amount to the second respondent herein.

¶17

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for second respondent submitted that trial court has dismissed the complaint for nonappearance of the complainant inspite of stay granted in this proceeding. He further submitted that a revision is preferred against the dismissal of complaint and the same is pending before this court.

¶18

5. I have perused the material papers filed along with quash petition. Admittedly as an today CC.No. 310 of 2011 is not pending.

¶19

6. Considering the material papers and the submissions of both sides, I am of the view that this criminal petition is liable to be dismissed with an observation that the petitioner can agitate all these grounds before trial court subject to result of the revision petition preferred by complainant against dismissal of the complaint.

¶20

7. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is disposed

¶21

off.

¶22

___________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .

¶23

09/06/2014 I s L

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 684 OF 2012

¶26

Circulation No. 05 Date: 09/06/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 41^st Court Hall

R.S.Murthy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.Murthy, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Rafiuuddin Vs The State of Ap.

Bantu Ramachandru Vs Bantu Yadagiri

Goriparthi Venkatesulu, Vs Smt. Goriparthi Bala Nagamma , Nagamani

Shaik Khajavali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kattineni Venkata Subba Rao Vs The State of a.P., rep. by P.P.

Ummadi Manoharamma Vs The State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor