Disposed

P. Venkata Laxmi Devi v. N. Raadha

Telangana HC7 Oct 2015CRLRC/2067/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of an application to reopen evidence for marking an insolvency petition. The Court noted the presumption in favor of the complainant but permitted a fresh application post-witness examination.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision case disposed; direction to trial court to consider future fresh application after witness examinations.

P. Venkata Laxmi Devi Vs N. Raadha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2067 OF 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner/de facto complainant has preferred the present criminal revision case by invoking the provisions under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.,) being aggrieved by the order, dated 05.09.2015, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1601 of 2015 in C.C.No.701 of 2013 on the file of the First Special Magistrate, at Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/complainant seeking to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 for marking Insolvency Petition No.20 of 2012.

¶5

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner/complainant has filed an application under Section 311 CrPC to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 for marking Insolvency Petition No.20 of 2012 to prove the fact that her name is also shown in the list of the persons, from whom the first respondent herein has availed loan or that the first respondent is liable to pay the amount to the petitioner/complainant. The Court below dismissed the application of the petitioner/complainant on the ground that on the earlier occasion also, the petition filed to mark the Insolvency Petition is dismissed and as such, again filing the application seeking similar prayer cannot be permitted and as such, dismissed the application. He further observed that instead of preferring the revision petition, the petitioner has again filed the application, which cannot be permitted.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that in order to avoid repayments to the creditors, the first respondent/accused and her husband has filed I.P.No.20 of 2012 before the Court of Hon’ble Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and marking of the same to prove the fact that the accused has availed hand loan from the petitioner/complainant is very much necessary and as such, prays this Court to set aside the impugned order and direct the Court below to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 and mark I.P.No.20 of 2012 in C.C.No.701 of 2013.

¶8

This Court is of the view that the first respondent/accused is not disputing her signature and always the presumption is in favour of the petitioner, who is the complainant herein, and it is for the respondent/accused to rebut the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/complainant to mark I.P.No.20 of 2012. However, it is left open to the petitioner herein to file a fresh application, after completion of the examination of the all the witnesses concerned, if he so chooses to mark the I.P.No.20 of 2012, and on such application, the trial Court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶9

The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶11

07.10.2015 pln

P. Venkata Laxmi Devi v. N. Raadha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Venkata Laxmi Devi v. N. Raadha

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

The Guntur Municipal Superior Employees Vs Chebrolu Hari Prasada Rao (Died)

B.Madan Singh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Venkatesh Goud Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Ratakonda Lalithamma died per Lrs Appts 3 and 4 Vs Smt. Ramineni Sarojini Devi (died) per LRs Rr - 20 to 22

Hari Naga Sri Venkata Krishna Murthy Vs Sri Hari Vasudeva Sarma

Smt. G.Grace, Vs Smt. Varamma