Partly allowed

Varayogula Vishwamohan, v. Tatikonda Prasad, and Another

Telangana HC14 Nov 2018CRLP/12810/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed Magistrate's order directing complainant to furnish account details, directing instead that he provide his brother-in-law's address to enable summons. Adverse inference permitted if address not furnished.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 19.01.2011 set aside; petitioner directed to furnish brother-in-law's address; adverse inference permissible for non-compliance.

Varayogula Vishwamohan, Vs Tatikonda… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12810 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Code’) is filed by the petitioners - complainant seeking to quash the order, 19.01.2011, in Crl.M.P. No.4074 of 2010 in C.C. No.288 of 2010, passed by the learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, and also the order dated 14.11.2011, passed in Crl.R.P. No.13 of 2011, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal.

¶5

In Crl.M.P. No.4074 of 2010 in C.C. No.288 of 2010 filed by respondent No.1 herein under Section 91 of the Code to order the petitioner - complainant to furnish the particulars of statement of account for the year 2005 belonging to the brother-in-law of the petitioner herein, the learned Magistrate, observing that the petitioner - complainant, in his cross-examination, stated that the amount was brought from the account of his brother-in-law in the year 2005 and that he produced the statement of account but did not produce the same, allowed the petition, by order, dated 19.01.2011.

¶6

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner - complainant preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No.13 of 2011 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, but the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the same on the ground that the revision is not maintainable against an order under Section 91. Challenging the said

¶7

¶8

order, the present criminal petition is filed by the petitioner - complainant.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner, now, submits that the petitioner does not know the particulars of account of his brother-in-law and that his brother-in-law is not furnishing his details of account to him. The petitioner cannot be directed to perform an impossible task when he pleads that he does not have the account details and that his brother-in-law is not giving the details, he cannot be expected to comply with the order. In those circumstances, it is for respondent No.1 - accused to summon the brother-in-law of the petitioner - complainant.

¶10

In view of the above, the order, dated 19.01.2011, passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P. No.4074 of 2010 in C.C. No.288 of 2010 is set aside, and the petitioner - complainant herein is directed to furnish the address of his brother-in-law to the Court, so that, the accused would have an opportunity to summon the brother-in-law of petitioner - complainant. On the petitioner - complainant’s failing to furnish such address, the learned Magistrate, however, can draw adverse inference, subject to the appreciation of any explanation coming forth from the petitioners.

¶11

With the above direction, the present Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶12

¶13

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the

¶14

present Criminal Petition stand closed.

¶15

SMT. T. RAJANI, J

¶16

November 14, 2018 Mgr

Varayogula Vishwamohan, v. Tatikonda Prasad, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varayogula Vishwamohan, v. Tatikonda Prasad, and Another

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

Matta Madhusudana Rao, Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Desham Laxma Reddy, Vizianagaram District and Another Vs the State of Ap.,Rep. Pp. through SHO Vizianagaram and Anr.

Smt Anwar Jahan Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Pisini Ramanarao, Srikakulam District and 9 Others Vs the State of Ap., Rep. by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

Chennu Chanti , Mechanic Chanti and Another Vs Goli Shashikanth and the State of A.P.

Addepalli Vijaya Kumar (A-4) and B.Sanyasi Rao (A-5) Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp Throu., I.P. CID Visakhapa