Disposed

Smt. Y.Uma Maheswari, v. Smt. Komaragiri Indirarani

Telangana HC19 Jan 2015WP/2428/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking prohibition against criminal proceedings for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision on jurisdiction for launch of prosecution under Section 177 CrPC and directed the lower court to ensure proper jurisdiction before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed directing the Magistrate to take note of the Apex Court decision and ensure jurisdiction; complaint to be returned if lacks jurisdiction.

Smt. Y.Uma Maheswari, Vs Smt. Komaragiri Indirarani — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2428 of 2009

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Prohibition to prohibit the second respondent from taking any further proceedings pursuant to or in furtherance in C.C.No.278/2005 on the file of the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubad, Warangal District filed by the first respondent.

¶5

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home for the second respondent State and the learned counsel for unofficial first respondent.

¶6

3. Alleging that the petitioner issued a cheque dated 04.03.2005 drawn on Global Trust Bank, Gandhinagar Branch, Hyderabad and when the same was presented on 07.03.2005 in Andhra Bank Branch, Dornakal it was dishonoured, the first respondent initiated criminal prosecution against the petitioner vide C.C.No.278/2005, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubad, Warangal District .

¶7

4. Contenting that initiation of the said proceedings is hit by Section 68 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶8

5. This Court, while ordering Rule Nisi on 11.02.2009 in WPMP.No.3099/2009, granted order of Status quo.

¶9

6. Today, when the matter is called, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHOD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER^[1] and a copy of the said Judgment is placed on record wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 58.7

¶10

held as follows:

¶11

“58.7. The general rule stipulated under Section 177 CrPC applies to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched against the drawer of the cheque only before the court within whose jurisdiction the dishonor takes place except in situations where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable under Section 138 is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of Section 220 (1) read with Section 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is covered by the provisions of Section 182 (1) read with Sections 184 and 220 thereof.”

¶12

7. While referring to the above said principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubad, Warangal District cannot proceed further with the adjudication of the matter. The said contention is not disputed by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home.

¶13

8. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubad, Warangal District to take note of the above decision, and if it lacks jurisdiction, the complaint may be returned to the complainant for presentation before the proper Court. Otherwise, the trial can be taken up and proceeded in accordance with law. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶14

_______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶15

Date:19.01.2015 grk

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.2428 of 2009

¶18

Date :19.01.2015

¶19

grk

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.2428 of 2009

¶21

Date :19.01.2015

¶22

Between: Smt. Y.Uma Maheswari, W/o. Kashinath, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Flat No.204, Pattabhi Towers, R.T.C. Cross Roads, Hyderabad. … Petitioner

¶23

and Smt. Komaragiri Indirarani, W/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 38 years, Employee in ICDS, R/o. Ammapalem village, Dornakal Mandal, Warangal District and another.

¶24

… Respondents

¶25

[1] (2014) 9 SCC 129

Smt. Y.Uma Maheswari, v. Smt. Komaragiri Indirarani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Y.Uma Maheswari, v. Smt. Komaragiri Indirarani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Satwaji S/o Ramji Vs The Chairman District Co-op Marketing Society

G.Khader Saheb, (died) per Lrs Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

G.Gangulaiah, Vs a.P.State Housing Corporation Limited

S. Satyam Vs The District Collector, Guntur

Naidu Vs Sri L.V. Subrahmanyam

Smt. Thodupunoori Kadambari Vs Sri Gaddam Ravi Kumar