Dismissed

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

Telangana HC12 Oct 2022CRLA/656/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for non-prosecution. The appellant, aggrieved by the accused's acquittal in a cheque bounce case, failed to appear or represent despite notices. The court held that since the offence is incurable and non-comply with the diligence required, the appeal was dismissed to serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No.656 of 2010 dismissed for non-prosecution; miscellaneous applications closed.

M/S. Kalyanaguru Chit Funds (P) Ltd. , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and Another — Telangana HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

l32s1l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 656 OF 2010

¶7

Criminal Appeal under Section 378(4) of Crl.P.C. against the Judgment dated 2610812009 in CC No.634 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the XVI Additional Judge-cum- XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Kalyanaguru Chit Funds (P) Ltd., being rep by its Managing Director Mr.A.Seshagiri Rao, Office at D.No. 6-3-663/1414,. Jaffar AIi Baig Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT/ COMPLAINANT

¶11

AND

¶12

The Public Prosecutor, being rep. by State of A.P., High Court of A,P., Hyderabad.

¶13

B.Swamy, S/o.not known, Major, Q.No.6/3, Kachiguda Rly Station, APSRTC Staff Qrts.1 , Hyderabad -18

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED

¶15

For the Appellant : SRI NAGESWARA RAO TURAGA, Advocate (not present)

¶16

Forthe Respondent No.21: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

For the Respondent No,2 : SRI T.K.RAGHUNATH, Advocate

¶18

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶19

H C:I\I'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDT)R

¶20

C RIMINAL APPEAL No.656 OF 201Cl

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

l. This Crim nal Appeal is filed by the Appeliar.l-.i Complainant aggrieved by th : acquittal recorded by the XVI .AdCitional Judgecum-XX Additic nrrl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.^()it), Criminal Courts at Hydr r:rbad in C.C.No.634 of 2O0B dt 2ti.O8.2OO9 in acquitting the accused under Section 138 of .h e Negotiable Instruments -{ct

¶24

When the rnatter is listed on 10. 1O.2O22 lhr:re was no representatior-r o r behalf of the appellant, ils s,-rc^-r, this Court directed to post t re appeal to this date i.e. 12. tO.2O2',.-'., under the caption 'for dism. ssal.

¶25

Even, today, rvhen the matter is listed uncler the: caption 'for dismissal' there s no representation on behalf ol zrppellant. It shows that the appellant/complainant is rrot €'rncing any interest in pros,:cuting the mattcr diliger-rtlr'. Irr,rrther, the offences under Se rtiorl 138 of the Ncgotiablc Instrumerits Act, are quasi criminai in r:rture and also compour-rdable ofle tr,:es. Since the appellant/con piarnant failed to prosecutc hts ca,;e diligently,

¶26

¶27

no useful purpose would be served in keeping^{the appeal}

¶28

pending.

¶29

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed for^non-

¶30

prosecution.

¶31

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if^{any, shall}

¶32

stand closed.

¶33

Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE ICER

The XVI Additional Judge -cum- XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. (with records)

¶38

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶39

One CC to Sri Nageswara Rao Turaga, Advocate IOPUCI

¶40

One CC to Sri T.K.Raghunath, Advocate TOPUCI Kj 5. Two CD Copies\y

¶41

HIGH COURT

¶42

DATED:1211012022

¶43

./..:i. ' s
::\ t
I'J
Ag
c,
q)

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

CRLA.No.656 of 2( 1(l

¶46

DISMISSING THE^(:RL.A. FOR NON-PROSECUTION.

¶47

-...-'3
(v<br>

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

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

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

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