Dismissed

The Charminar Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Foreshore Marketing (P) Ltd., and 3 Others

Telangana HC12 Oct 2022CRLA/152/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal in a Section 138 NI Act case for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to appear or file any representation on the listed dates, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2009 dismissed for non-prosecution; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

The Charminar Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd. Vs M/S. Foreshore… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 152 OF 2009

¶8

Appeal under Section 378$) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 18.06.08 in Crl.A.No.39B of 2007 on the file of the ll Addl. Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

THE CHARMINAR CO-OP. URBAN BANK LTD., Having its Off. at Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.Khaleel Khan, S/o Dawood Khan, aged 54 yrs., Occ Service.

¶11

...APPE LLANT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAI NANT

¶12

AND

¶13

M/S. FORESHORE MARKETING (P) LTD., Rep. by its Managing Partner, M.Mohan Reddy, S/o M.Venkatapathy Reddy, H.No.8-2-334l30, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶14

M.Mohan Reddy, S/o M.Venkatapathy Reddy, H.No.B-2-334i30, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. (case against 42 abated as per Orders Sr.No.1401/2006,

¶15

Smt.Prathima Reddy, Wo M.Mohan Reddy, Partner, M/s. Rohit & Associates H.No.B-2-334l30, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶16

The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶17

The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶18

.,.RESPONDENTS/APPE LLANT/ACCUSE D

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. MOGILI ANAVENI

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 4: NONE APPEARED

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

{

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶25

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2OO9

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal Petition is filed against the Judgment dt. 18.06.2008 passed Criminal Appeal No.398/2007 by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondents I to 3 herein for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶28

When the matter is listed on 27 .09 .2022 there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, as such, this Court directed to post the appeal to this date i.e. 12.10.2022, under the caption'for dismissal.

¶29

Even, today, when the matter is listed under the caption'for dismissal' there is no representation on behalf of appellant. It shows that the petitioner/Accused is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter diligently. Further, the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is quasi criminal in nature and it is for the appellant/complainant to pursue his case. In the absence of the appellant evincing interest in prosecuting the appeal, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending.

¶30

¶31

)

¶32

Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed for non-

¶33

prosecution.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, sha1l stand

¶35

closed.

¶36

SD/.N. RAJ GOPAL ASSISTAN'T REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// q-ll)

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The chiarman, co-op^{Urban BankLimited, Having its office at PuraniHaveli,} HyderaOad. Rep.^{by its ManagingDirector' Mr' KhaleelKhan' S/o Dawood} Khan, aged 54 Years,^{Occ: Service}

¶41

One CCto Smt.^{Mogili Anaveni, Advocate IOPUCI}

¶42

3.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶43

Two CD CoPies

¶44

One Spare^CoPY

gbr

r) ?

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211012022

./.. '( ri S T4rE
/.
2 [ uE[ ?i]?2 +

¶51

ORDER

¶52

CRL.A.No.152 of 2009

¶53

DISMISSING THE CRL.A FOR NON PROSECUTION

¶54

"io C9W

The Charminar Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Foreshore Marketing (P) Ltd., and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Charminar Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd. v. M/S. Foreshore Marketing (P) Ltd., and 3 Others

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

Kishore Kumar M.Parekh Vs Ramesh Chandra M.Parekh and Two Others

Maduri Cheralu Vs The State of Telangana

N.S.V. Subrahmanyam Vs The State of Telangana

Allamia Ravi , Allam Ravinder and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Ch.Sudhakar Raju Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

M/S. Kalyanaguru Chit Funds (P) Ltd. , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and Another