Allowed

K.v.Nageswara Rao and 2 Others v. State of Ap., Rpe.Byis P.P and Anothers

Telangana HC28 Aug 2018CRLP/8352/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes criminal proceedings against petitioners alleging cheque forgery. The court held that alleging the cheque was stolen and forged appears to be a counterblast to the petitioners' own successful complaint, and continuation would constitute abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings (C.C.No.415 of 2009) against the petitioners and closing of miscellaneous petitions.

K.v.Nageswara Rao and 2 Others Vs State of Ap., Rpe.Byis… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8352 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This criminal petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.415 of 2009 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State. None appears for the 2^nd respondent, despite service of notice.

¶6

The complaint is filed stating that complainant lost his cheque book and that Police issued certificate dated 18.11.2003 stating that the cheque book is not traced; later to the surprise of the complainant, he received a notice stating that he issued cheques to the petitioners herein. The complainant states that the cheques were committed theft of and were fabricated. He also states that the signatures on the cheques and the promissory notes are forged.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein filed complaint against the complainant and the same ended in conviction by virtue of judgment 13.09.2007 passed in C.C.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Sub Judge/Asst. Sessions Judgecum-Judicial Magistrate at Yanam; thereafter the complainant preferred appeal against the said judgment. The appeal was allowed only on technical grounds.

¶8

¶9

The aforesaid judgment would show that petition filed by the complainant for taking the cheques to an expert was dismissed and that he did not question the said order of dismissal. Hence, having failed to prove that the cheques were forged, the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners that they forged the cheques cannot be accepted. On the face of the complaint, it appears, the same is filed as counterblast to the complaint filed by the petitioners herein.

¶10

Hence, in the above circumstances, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners would result in abuse of process of law.

¶11

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.415 of 2009 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, are quashed.

¶12

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending stand closed.

¶13

____________ T. RAJANI, J

¶14

August 28, 2018 MRR

K.v.Nageswara Rao and 2 Others v. State of Ap., Rpe.Byis P.P and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Nageswara Rao and 2 Others v. State of Ap., Rpe.Byis P.P and Anothers

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

Konda Janaiah, and 5 Others, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Karyampudi Sesha Rao and Anr. Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P. and Anr.

Biragoni Dayanand Vs State of Ap. Repby Its Sub Inspector, and Anothers

Valluru Samba Siva Rao, Vs the State Rep by Its Pp and Another

K.Hari shankar Goud, Vs The State of A.P.

Pegadapelli Chandraiah, Karimnagar Dt. Vs State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.