Allowed

K. Samba Shiva Raju v. M/s Srinivas Civil Works Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Others

Telangana HC28 Apr 2021CRLP/947/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order dismissing a petition to withdraw funds deposited to obtain suspension of an appellate order in a cheque bounce case, remanding the matter for consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 24-12-2020 was quashed and the lower court directed to consider the application for withdrawal of the deposited amount.

K. Samba Shiva Raju Vs M/s Srinivas Civil Works Pvt. Ltd… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 947 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

K. Samba Shiva Raju, S/o K.A.N Raju, Aged about 69^years, Occ.^{Business,R/o Plot} No.118, NCL Enclave, Pet Basheeiabad, Quthbullapur^{Mandal, Ivledchal't,4alkajgiri} District

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIONERyCOMPLAINANT

¶10

1 tvl/s Srinivas Civil Works Pvt Ltd., Flat No.213, Sri^{Ramakrishna Towers,Beside} lmage Hospitals, Ameerpet, Hyderabad^{- 73 Rep by its lvlanaging Director,} P.Ramachandra Raju

¶11

P. Ramachandra R6ju, S/o Satya Seetharama^{Raju,Occ. Managing Director of} M/s Srinivasa Civil Works Pvt Lid R/o^{Flat No.213, Sri RamakrishnaTowers,} Beside lmage Hospitals, Ameerpet, Hyderabad -⁵⁰⁰⁰⁷³

¶12

... Respondents/ Accused

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep by its^{Public Prosecutor,HighCourt Building,} Hvderabad

¶14

...RES'.NDENT/RES'.NDENT

¶15

Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the High Court may be pleased} to Quash the order daled 2411212020^{made in crl.lr/.PNo.6B2 0f 2020 in crl.lv.P} No.236 of 2O2O in Crl.M.P No.214 of^{2O2Oin Crl.Appeal No.153of 2020 and} consequently a direction may^{be passedpermittingthe Petitioner/Complainantto} withdraw the amount deposited by^{the Respond ents/Accusedin the crl.AppealNo.} 153 o'f 2020

¶16

This Petition coming on for^{hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal Petition and^{upon hearing the arguments of sri KEERTI ARUN} KUIVAR, Advocate for the Petitioner^{and of the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on} behalf of the Respondent^{No.3 and of Sri chetluru srinivas, Advocatefor the} Respondent Nos.1 and^2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.947 of 2021

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the order dated 24-12-2020 in Crl.M.P.No.682 of 2O2O in Crl.M.P.No.236 of 2O2O in Crl.M.P.No.214 of 2O2O in Crl.A.No.153 of 2O2O passed by the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

Heard Keerthi Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. None appea-rs for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite the name of Sri Chetluru Srinivas is printed in cause list. Perused the Record.

¶23

The petitioner herein is complainant in C.C.No.2074 of 2018 and he has filed the said complaint under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. , for the offence under Section 1 38 of Negotiable Instruments Act against 1'r and 2nd respondents herein. Vide judgment dated 19-02-2020 th,e said Calendar Case was ended in conviction. Respondbnt Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.153 of 2O2O. ln the said appeal accused Nos. 1 and 2 have fiied an application seeking suspension of sentence. The said application was ordered on certain conditions including deposit of certain amount.

¶24

The petitioner herein has filed Crl.M.P.No.214 of 2O2O before the appellate Court seeking clarification u,ith regard to

¶25

¶26

the amount^{directed to be deposited by respondent Nos'1 and} 2 I accused^{and the said application was allowed on} I2-O3-2O2O.^{RespondentNos' 1 and 2havefiled} Crl.P.No.419^{B of 2O2Ochallenging the said order' Vide order} d,ated 22-09-2020^{in l.A'No' Iof 2O2O in Crl P'4198 of 2O2O} this Court^{passedthe follor'r'ing order:}

¶27

"This Court,^{uid-e order dated 22'09'2020in I'A' No'1 of} 2O2O in Ciminal^{Petition No'4197 of2O2O' has} suspended the^{order doted 14'08'2020 inCiminal} M.P.No.235 of^{2O2O in Cnminat M'P'No'214oJ2O2O in} Criminal Appeal^{lVo.l53 of 2O2O passed bg the learned} VIII Additionat^{Distict and SessdonsJudge'Ranga Reddy} Distict, L.B.^{Nagar. Hence, there shall be inteim} suspension of^{the orderdated 14'08'2020 in Ciminal} M.P.No.236^{of 2O2O in Ciminal M'P' No'214of 2O2O in} Ciminal Appeat^{I[o, ] 53 of 2O2O passed by the le-arned} VIII Additional^{Distnct anci SessionsJudge'Ranga Reddy} District, L.B.^{Nagar,sub.jectto the cortdition of petitioners} depositir-Lg an^{amountof Rs.5,6O,oOO/- (Rupees'fiuelakhs} srxty thousrlrtd.^{ortty) to the credit of CiminlAppeal} .iVo. -153 of^{2020 pendingon the} file^{of the leamed VIII} Additional^{Distict and Sessions Judge' RangaReddg} Distict, L.B.^{Nogar, tt-tithin a peiod of three (3) uteeksfrom} today."

¶28

Sri^{Keethi Arun Kumar, learned counselfor the} petitioner would^{submit that respondent Nos' 1 and 2 lnave} deposited the^{abovesaid amountbeforethe said Court' The} petitioner herein^{has filed a petition vide Cr1'M'P'No'682of} 2O2O to^{withdraw the arnount of Rs'5'6O'000/-deposited to} the credit^{of the abovesaid Criminal Appeal by respondent}

¶29

¶30

Nos. 1 and 2.^{Videimpurgned order dated 24-12-2O20'the} Court below^{has dismissbd the said application on the ground} that though this^{Court suspended the orders dated} I4-O8-2O2O,^{there is no directionwith regardto withdrawal of} the said amount.

¶31

The above^{stated factswould revealthat the above said} Calendar Case was^{ended in convictionfor the offence under} Section 138 of^{Negotiable Instruments Act' The appellate} Court has directed^{respondentNos.1 and 2 to deposit certain} amount. A clarification^{order was passed on 14-08-2020on} the petition filed^{by the petitioner' This Courtgranted} suspension of the^{said order datedl4-O8-2O20on deposit of} Rs.5,60,000/- by^{respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within a period of} three (3) weeks.^{There is no permissiongranted to the} petitioner herein/^complainant /^{resporrdentNo' 1in} Crl.A.No.153 of^{2O2O for u'ithdrau'a1of the said amount'} Learned counsel for^{the petitionerrn'ould submitthat the} petitioner herein is suffering^{with variouso1d age ailments} and he is in acute need^{of money.He has filed bunch of} medical reports in^{proof of} the^{same.As per Section 1a8(3) of} Negotiable Instruments Act, the^{AppellateCourt is having} power to release the amount deposited by the^{Appellant to the} Complainant at any time during the^{pendencyof the Appeal.} Hon'ble Apex Court in Surinder Singh^Deswal @^{Cot. S.S.} Deswal and others as. Virender Gandhi^{and another}

¶32

¶33

reported in 2019 Law Suit (SC) i245 held that amendment in Section I4B of Negotiable Instruments Act is procedural in nature and not substantive, the same can have a retrospective effect. The appelrate court dismissed the application filed b.y the petitioner only on the ground that there is no mention about withdrawal of the said amount in the order dated 22_O}_2O2O in I.A.No.OI of 2O2O in Crl.P.No.4i9B of 2O2O passed by this Court.

¶34

Considering the said facts, the order dated 24_12_2020 in Cr1.M.P.No.6B2 of 2O2O in Crl.M.p.No.236 of 2O2O in Crl.M.P.No.214 of 2O2O in Crl.A.No.153 of 2O2O passed by the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District is quashed. Cr1.M.P.No.682 ol 2O2O filed by the petitioner/ complainant is allowed and VIII Add1. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District shall consider the said application filed by the petitioner herein for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.5,60,000/- deposited by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the credit of Crl.A.No.153 of 2020.

¶35

B. allorved Accordingly, this Criminal Petitior-r is Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition, sha11

¶36

stand closed.

¶37

Sd/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I 6{\ SECTION^OFFICER

¶38

¶39

To 1. The Vlll^{Additional District andSessionsJudge' Ranga Reddy District at} L. B. Naoar. 2. i;; 6E;'i"^{the Public Prosecutor (TG), High Courtfor the State of Telangana'} Hvderabad^(OUT) 3. iji,;"bCi; iri^{ku'",.t,i Arun Kumar' Advocate (oPUC)} ;. il; ;d i;^{5;i Cr,"tir*Sreenivas, Advocate(oPUc)} 5. Two CD^CoPies K

HIGH^COURT

DATED:28/04/2021

ORDER

CRLP.No.947^{ot 2021}

¶44

ALLOWING THE CRL.P.

¶45

lrZ
t'tu
cr"J
.?r
ilil,.Z
lio
t\s
<br>:,,
:i,::^ r.ttt,t .:-
.\:-:;r;z/

¶46

_-/-

¶47

7DV

¶48

ilili €l-.....1.'::i.:_:-'.1*.::

K. Samba Shiva Raju v. M/s Srinivas Civil Works Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Samba Shiva Raju v. M/s Srinivas Civil Works Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Others

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

Arruri Parvathi Vs The State of Telangana

Renduchintala Ramachandra Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

Balagouni Balraj Goud Vs The State, CBI

S. Srividya, Vs Tarakaraju Krishna veni

Samreddy Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Imran and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another