Allowed

Sunil Kumar Ahuja v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Jun 2017CRLRC/1249/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted the petition in Criminal Revision Case No.1249 of 2017 and extended by two weeks the time for the complainant to pay court costs of Rs.5,000 required to restore a cheque dishonour case to the file of the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Time for payment of court costs of Rs.5,000 extended by two weeks; upon payment, the earlier dismissal order shall be set aside and the case restored.

Sunil Kumar Ahuja Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No.1249 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘the Code’, for brevity) is filed by the petitioner/ appellant/ complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) requesting to extend the time for compliance of the condition imposed in the orders, dated 07.02.2017, of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, passed in Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2015.

¶5

2 . I have heard the submissions of Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy , learned counsel appearing for the complainant at the stage of admission. I have perused the material record. I have also heard the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State of Telangana. The 2^nd respondent is stated to be the accused in the complaint case.

¶6

3 . The facts of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant, in brief, are as follows:

¶7

The complainant filed a case against the accused requesting to punish the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The cheque amount was more than Rs.42 lakhs. The cheque was given towards an enforceable debt. The trial Court dismissed the case for default, under Section 256(1) of the Code, observing that the petitioner did not get ready in the matter inspite of granting several adjournments and that the case is identified for early disposal. Aggrieved of the said orders, the complainant filed the aforesaid appeal before the Court below. By the order impugned in this revision, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order, dated 07.09.2015, of the learned XI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby the complaint case was dismissed for default and directed restoration of the case on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/ -, on or before 06.03.2017, to the Secretary,

¶8

¶9

MSRM, J Crl.R.C.No.1249 of 2017 Legal Services Authority, Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioner could not pay the said costs within the aforementioned time fixed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge due to oversight and as the petitioner could not appear before the Court below on the date the said order was pronounced. Hence, the present revision case is filed. If the revision is not allowed and time is not extended for complying with the condition imposed by the Court below in the impugned orders, the petitioner/ complainant suffers serious and irreparable loss as the amount involved in the matter is more than forty two lakhs.

¶10

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that one more opportunity can be granted to the complainant by extending the time for compliance of the condition imposed in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶11

5 . In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and time for payment of costs of Rs.5,000/ - to the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Nampally, Hyderabad, is extended by two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On payment of costs within the extended time, the orders, dated 07.09.2015, passed by the XI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, shall stand set aside and C.C.No.66 of 2015 shall stand restored to file of the said Court.

¶12

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

_______________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶14

21^st June, 2017 RAR

Sunil Kumar Ahuja v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Ahuja v. The State of Telangana

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

Syed Khaja Pasha, Vs The State of Telangana

Rathod Bancilal Vs State of Telangana.

Vibha Vijay Tumala Vs Morla Edukondalu Goud

Sattari Narasimha Vs The State or Telangana

Sri. Musala Suresh Kumar, Vs Smt. Musala Vijaya Madhavi

Makala Laxmidevamma Vs Makala Narayana