Dismissed

Smt T.Aruna Kumari v. State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC14 Oct 2022CRLP/133/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC filed to quash proceedings related to a cheque dishonour case. The Court held that since the main complaint (C.C.No.266 of 2014) was already disposed of by the trial court, the petitions were infructuous. The petitioner's failure to apprise the trial court of pending stay orders negated any claim of procedural violation.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal petitions are dismissed as infructuous because the main complaint was already disposed of.

Smt T.Aruna Kumari Vs State of Telangana and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32se l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE OR. JUSTTCE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CR IMINAL PETITION NOS: 133 AND 319 0F 2017

¶7

CRL.P.NO.133 0F 2017:

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt T.Aruna Kumari, Wo. Y.Sleeva Reddy, R/o. iO-1-315, Chintal Basti, Hyderabad

¶10

...RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED/PETITTONER AND

¶11

9tgl"^{of Telangana, through.pubtic prosecutor,High Court} at Hyderabad. 2. K.Hanuman Krishna, S/o. k.Venkata Rao, R/o. Do-or No.11_5S Ffoi fl"-ros sy.No.739/740, Nadargur Viilage saroomagar, Mandar, Ranoa n"iiv iiiiiria. ...pETlTloNER/ COMPLA|NANiI nespbroerur

¶12

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in cc.No.266 of 2014 on the file of the court of the Xll special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad or alternatively quash the orders in Crl.MP.No.1406 of 2016 in CC.No.266 ot 2O14 dt.O2.11.2016 on its file.

¶13

CRLPMP. NO: 153 OF 2017

¶14

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the. circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in cc.No.266 of 2014 on the file of the court of the Xll Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad including appearance of the petitioner pending disposat of the Crl.p.

¶15

CRL.P. NO.319 0F 2 017:

¶16

Between:

¶17

Smt T.Aruna Kumari, W/o. Y.Steeva Reddy, Rl/o. 1O-1-31S, Chintal Basti, Hyderabad ... RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED/PETITIONER ANO

¶18

I I I I i I

¶19

'1 . State of Telang ana, through Public Prosecutor, High Court i:Lt H'yderabad. 2. K.Hanuman Kr shna, S/o. K.Venkata Rao, Rl/o. Door No.1'l-r55 t)lot No.105, Sy.No.739/740 Nadargul Village Saroornagar, Mandal, R rnga ll.eddy District. ...PETITIONER/ COMPLAINI N T/ RESPONDENT

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memora tdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC.No.266 of 2O14 on thrr^rile of the Court of the Xll Special tVagir trate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad and^grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'bl€ Court may deem fit and proper in the c rcum:;tances of the case.

¶21

This Petition crming on for hearing, upon perusrng tie Memorandum of Grounds of Crimir al Petition and upon hearing tl'r: arguments of Sri.V.V-L.N.SARMA, \dvocate for the Petitioner (in both^pet tions;) and of the Assistant Public Prosr cutor for the State of Telangana on behal of the Respondent No.1 (in both petitions I and of Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, Advocate f c,r th,: Respondent No.2 (in both petitions

¶22

The Court made the fo lowing: COMMON ORDER

¶23

¶24

.,/

¶25

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶26

CRIMINAI, PETITION Nos.133 and 319 ot2Ol7

¶27

COMMON ORDER:

¶28

Crl.P.No.3l9 of 2Ol7 is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.266 of 2Ol4 on the hle of XII Special Magistrate, Errarnanzll, Hyderabad, whereas Crl.P.No. 133 of 2Ol7 is filed to quash the orders dated O2.',L.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.t406 of 2015 in C.C.No.266 of 2014, whcrein the learned trial Court has allowed the petition filed by the respondent/complainant for recalling of PW.l and examination of other witnesses and for receiving of documents. Both these petitions are arising out of same transaction. Therefore, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

¶29

The facts in brief rvhich necessitated to hle these petitions are as under

¶30

Respondent No.2/complainant has liled C.C.No.266 of 2Ol4 on the file of XII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrumcnts Act (fcr short, "the Act"). According to respondent No.2/de-facto complainant, he has advanced an amount of Rs.2,6O,OO0/- to the petitioner/accused on 28.05.20I3 for meeting his urgent

¶31

¶32

financial n:eds. The petitioner has issued a cheque of Rs.1,3O,000/- bearing No.9330g1 and another c roquo bearing No.933082 for an amouirt of Rs. 1,3O.OOO/ drawn on 25.10.2013 in lavour of respondent No.2 on C ancrrr bank,. Masab Tanl : in discharge of the loan borrowe l. l.he said cheques were deposited on 25.10.2013 and both the cheques were dishor: oured with an endorsement "insuffici,:nt lunds,,. The dc-fact > complainant intimated the peti _rr: ner about dishonourrnl of the cheques and requested hirt to arrange payment of rroney. On 16.11.2O13, the petirioner hras sent his persons and requested four weeks time to pav the :r,tney under the cheques. As there was no response from [he peLitioner, the de-facto con plainant has again presented the ,l.1cques on 02.O1.2O14 rnd again the cheques were returr,rrl r,,ith an cndorsement "insufficient funds". Agarn t tc rle_fact.o complainant ntimated the petitioner over phone ar.cl dcrnanded him to pay tl e money. This time also the petition:r rc(luestcd four neeks tirre i.e., up to 20.12.2O13. As th(.re !r.z r; no lurther rcsponsc, thr : d5,-12"1o complainant issued lega notice on 17.O1.2011 a;king the petitioner to pay Rs.:1,60,( r(l,l/, under the dishonou: ed cheques within fifteen days. l.he I roti:e was received on 22.01.2014, but the petitioner l)as n. t. piLid thc

amount. Finally, the complaint under Section 138 of^{ttre Act is} filed.

¶37

During the course of trial, after the evidence of^{PW. 1, the} respondent/complainant has filed Crl.M.P.No.¹⁴⁰⁶ of^{2O15 in} C.C.No.266 of 2OL4- The petitioner/ acused has^{frled a counter} and on hearing both sides, the trial Court has allowed the application permitting PW.l for further evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred Crl.P.No. 133 of 2017.

¶38

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that respondent No.2 / complainant in order to frll the lacuna and respondent No.2 wanted to examine^his brother and father and also filed certain documents,^which are not mentioned in the complaint. Either in the complaint or in the chief examination nothing was mentioned about the^sale transaction between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant and therefore prayed the Court to either^{quash C.C.No.266 of} 2Ol4 or set aside tl.e orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.1aO6 ot 2015.

¶39

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has supported the reasoning given by the t in allowing the petition and subrnitted that no prejudice

¶40

¶41

will be caus:d to the pctitioner/accused even if the relief sought for is grante C

¶42

6 Heard both sides and perused the record

¶43

Now, :he point for determination is whethe r the orders dated O2. I ..2OL6 passed in Crl.M.p.No. 1406 c,f 12015 in C.C.No.266 f 2Ol4 can be set aside or whether the proceedings in C.C.No.2€ 6 of 2074 can be quashed?

¶44

Durinl the course of hearing, it was broughl tr) the notice of the Court thar C.C.No.266 of 2Ol4 which is unJcr challenge in Crl.P.No.319 of2OlZ has already been disposed :f by the trial Court on 3l . 12.2019 .

¶45

Learne I counsel for the petitioner submitt,) ji that evcn though thcre was stay orders not to procee<l furtrer, r.he trial Court has p: oceeded and disposed of the matter. As per thc directions of his Court a letter was addressed to the learned XII Special Magi: trate, Hyderabad to know whether C..1.Nc.266 of 2014 is pencing. Learned XII Special Magistrate zL,:ldrr:ssed a reply dated i 4.O2.2O2O stating that Crl.p.No.319 rf 2017 was lrled to quas r C C.No.266 ot 2014, whereas Crl I).No i33 of 2017 was fie d to set aside. the orders in Crl.M.f .l,lo.14O6 ot 2015 dated A2.ll.2016 and in interim stey .rvas gra.nted until

¶46

¶47

/'l

¶48

06.06.20 L7 as per orders dated 18.04.2012 of this Court and the interim stay orders were extend until 28.03.2017, 1a.O4.2O17 and finally until 13. I L.2OL9. It is also stated in the said letter that on 18. 1 l.2O 19, the matter was taken up for defendants evidence and the trial Court has not received any orders as to tfle extension of interim orders. It is further mentioned in the said reply that both the parties have proceeded the matter and reported ready and thereby trial was completed and lengthy arguments were heard on 04.12.2019 to 20.12.2019 and finally judgment was pronounced on 31.12-2019 finding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

¶49

It is also submitted in the letter that subsequent to disposal of the case on 31.12.2O19, the Court has received orders of staying the matter on ll.O2.2O2O, which were passed in Crl.P.No. 133 of 2017 on 24.12.2019 and the said orders were dispatched on 30.12.2019. As C.C.No.266 of 2Ol4 was already disposed of on 31.12.2O19, these two petitions becomes infructuous.

¶50

As seen from the letter addressed by the learned Magistrate, the stay orders rvere extended until 13. I l.2O 19 and subsequently, the trial Court has not received any proceedings

¶51

¶52

from this ( ourt. about extension of the interim orders. The pctitioner/ a :c u sed, who filed these petitions, is th: :-igtLt person to know u,hr^.ther. the stay orders are pending or n tt According to thc let er addressed by the learned M.l€iistrate, on 18. I 1.2019, both the parties to the petition, ;n,::lucling the petitioner he rein. have proceeded with the trial of llrt: cerse, as if there werc n ) stay orders. The petitioner should lrave ::eported the trial Cor rrr that stay orders are pending, hen(:e the trial cannot br: pr oceeded with, but no such cffort was ::nacle. The very fact thz t thc petitioner also participated anrl cooperated with the tri rl and submitted his side of argu rnents from 04.12.2019 t<, 20 12.2019 would go to show that ttt: trial Court was nol infor nr:d of pending stay orders. Admitted l.,. as on the date of rlispor ar of C.c.No.266 of 2oL4, the triar c.._..rt has not rcceivcii any r rdcrs extending the interim stay. The :ctter of the learncd M.rgis tr.it(. also speaks that as on the date oI clis[rosal of C.C.No.266 o^,2Ol4, the stay orders grante d on ,.24.1,.2.2019 u.e re not rece vcd by the trial Court. However, tht: ytetitioner, who is arvare ,n 30.12.2O19 itself that this Court hrrs extended the intcrrm or le rs for eight weeks, should have fil:cl a memo beforc thc triel Court not to proceed further. But, no such efforts have be :n nrade. Tire [rial Court has received t]ee rtrders

on 11.02.2020 by which time the case has already been disposed of.

¶57

Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the trial Court was not aware of the fact that stay orders are pending. In any case, the trial Court has already disposed of C.C.No.266 of 20 14. If at all the petitioner feels that the trial Court has proceeded with the trial of C.C.No.266 of 2014, in spite of pendency of the stay orders by this Court, it is for the petitioner to take steps. However, as observed above, prima facie, the trial Court was not aware of the fact that stay orders were granted on 24.12.20 19 as the said orders were dispatched on 30. 12.2019 and were received by the Court on lL.O2.2O2O.

¶58

Since main C.C. i.e., C.C.No.266 of 2Ol4 itself was disposed of on 31.12.2019, cause of action does not survive in these petitions. Therefore, both the petitions become infructuous and are liable to be dismissed.

¶59

In the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed

¶60

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶61

Sd/.P.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C*

¶62

SECTION OFFICER

¶63

¶64

The Xll Special Magistrate,^{Erramanzil, Hyderabad.} 2. The Station House Officer,^{P.S.,Saifabad, Hyderabad.}

¶65

One CC to Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

One CC to Sri P.Nagendra Reddy,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Two CCs to the Pubiic Prosecutor,^{High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶68

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411012022

COMMON OROER

1',' x;tt:_il r<br>^"d <br>i .<br>t
\ /
)
\r-

¶75

CRLP.Nos.133 and : 19 ot 2017

¶76

BOTH THE CRL.Ps IIECOME TNFRUCTUOUS AND DtSMtSStiu r\ 1 1,^gl'l

Smt T.Aruna Kumari v. State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt T.Aruna Kumari v. State of Telangana 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

Markonda Kishan Vs The State of Telangana

N.Sudershan Vs the State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

Thummala Ramakrishna Reddy Vs the State of A.P.

Edigi Anandam Goud and 2 Others Vs K.Anitha and State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

Smt T.Aruna Kumari, Hyderabad Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

G.Satyanarayana Vs the State of A.P.