Allowed

B.Anuna Kumari v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Telangana HC6 Jun 2022CRLP/8809/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Court held that the allegations were unfounded and imaginary, and continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law in view of the police's final report finding no evidence of forgery.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 845 of 2013 are quashed.

B.Anuna Kumari Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

I i

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8809 OF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.Anuna Kumari, W/o Venkateshwaar Rao, Aged about 50^years, Occ: Cashier cum Clerk, SBH Main Branch, Near Clock tower, Nalgonda, Ryo Raghavendra Colony, Nalgonda Town.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

¶13

Manchukonda Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Raja Mallaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ: Nil, Fl/o H.No.6-3-1264, Savarkar Nagar, Nalgonda Town.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

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 call for the records pertaining in C.C.No.845 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise) at Nalgonda.

¶16

CRLPMP. NO: 8846 OF 20't5

¶17

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 C.C. No.B45 of 2013 on the file of Judicial [Vlagistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise) at Nalgonda, including the presence of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri G. L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and of Sri G. Satyanarayana Yadav, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

i I I

¶21

IION'Bt,E SRI JT]S1'ICT], A.S..\NTIIOSI I ITEI)DY

¶22

CRL.P.No.8809 ol'2015

¶23

ORI)EIT:

¶24

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.I'].C lor quashing proceedings against the pctitioner/accused in C.C.No.845 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate ol First Class^(Prohibition & Excise) at Nalgonda.

¶25

The lacts of the complaint in brief arc that lather of thc complainant was an account holder in State [Jar-rk of Ilyderabad, Main branch, Nalgonda vide A/c.No.52084243553, whclein the petitioner used to work as Cash ier-curn-c lerk. The f'ather of complainant was a pensioner and uscd to operate his savings account without cheque book. IIc died on 28.05.2012. During his life time, he used to take assistance ol his daughter for withdrawal of the amounts. On 1 I .07 .2012 the complainant and Manchukonda Sarojana and Manchukonda Aruna (Lws.2 and 3) went to the bank of the petitioner with the pass book for updation of account and there was entry showing withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- on 12.03.2012 and Rs.30,000/- on 09.04.2012 and alleged Lhat no such withdrawals were took place by thc lather of the cornplainant.

¶26

¶27

As such, tl'rc second respondent filed a cor-nplaint belbre the .ludicial N4a-gistrate of First Class, Nalgonda and the sarne u'as re-uistered in r:rime No.129 ol 20 l3 for the oftences punishable under Sections 409,419,420,468 and 477 IPC after investigation. the policc lllt:d final repoft as false case on 04.05.2013.^'l'he second respondent filed a protest petition to take cognizance and continue the criminal case. Aggrieved by the same, the pctitioner has lllcd this ;ctition to quash the proceedings.

¶28

Ileard the leamed counsel for the petitioner and lcarned Assistant Prrblic Prosecutor for first respondent-State and leamed counsel for th,: second respondent. Perused the records. 4. The second respondent filed a private complaint before the leamed Judic ial Magistrate of First Class and the sarre was refered to the Station House Officer, Nalgonda II Town Police Statior-r for in uestigation of the case under Section 200 Cr.]'}.C. and the same was registered in crime No. 129 of 201 3 fbr the aloresaid ollences The Sub-Inspector of Police after detailcd investigation fi led final rcport stating that statements of the ri,itnesses and investigation would reveal that the petitioner was not on 'cash

¶29

¶30

payment duty' o11 12.03.20 12, whcn thc llthcr ol' llrc second respondent has withdrawn an amount ol Rs.25,000/- arrd at that tir-ne one D.Subramanyarr was on duty. One rvitness bv narne Sri S.Mariyadas has stated that father of the second rcspondent has directly withdrawn amount from his account. IJe has funher stated that on 09.04.2012 the petitioner was present on cash paymcnt duty and she informed that father ol the second respondent has withdrawn Rs.30,000/- directly as per withdrawal lbrrn. In view o1the statements of the witnesses and investigation revealed that with some ulterior motive, the second respondent has tjled a false complaint attributing the allegations which are not true and accordingly submitted fi nal report.

¶31

Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed protest petition and on hearing the same, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and registered criminal case and continued the proceedings.

¶32

According to the statements of the witnesses and also the complaint, the father of the complainant died on 28.05.2012 and on 11.07.2012 the second respondent along with [-ws.2 and 3 went to

¶33

¶34

thc bank ancl got updatcd the passbook. They havc secn that crrtries shorvinq u'ithdrarval o1'Rs.25,000/- on 12.03.20 l2 and Rs.10.000/on 09.04.20 I 2 and according to them said rvithdrawals rverc actually not taken place and alleged that the petitioner herein was in-charge ol'cash counter on that day and might have lorged the signaturcs o1- :he father of the second respondent and used the withdrarval lbrms rvhich were taken by the petitioner at the tirne ol' eallicr withdrawals under the guise of not talll,ing his signature.

¶35

I'hc aJlegation that the petitioner has taken signed withdrarval lb,'rns frorn the fbther of second respondent, when hc uscd to come lor withdrawal of money during his life time is also investigated by the police and specifically mentioned that the petitioncr has not taken double signature of father of the second respondent on withdrawal forms.

¶36

Undisputedly, verification was done after about month after death ol'l'athc' of the second respondent, wherein they have noticed tu,o withdrar.r als. The allegations that signature ol father of the second respondent has been forged and prepared rvithdrawal form and withdrcra the arnounts are appears to [:e lalse and the same

¶37

¶38

cannot bc ruled out. During his Iilt tirne, the lirther o1' thc sccond respondent might have withdrawn the amounts. Inlact during the course o1' bank transactions without presence ol a pcrson and without comparing the signatures, the amounts will not be disbursed. l-he investigating officer has found during his investigation that when the l-ather of the second respondenl has withdrawn an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 12.03.2012, the petitioncr was not 'on cash payment duty' and she was on another duty With regard to withdrawal of Rs.30,000/- on 09.04.2012, thc lather of the second respondent alleged to have personally prescntcd withdrawal form and withdrawn the same and thc petitioner was 'on cash payment duty' on that day. The account is nraintained by father of the second respondent and he used to go along with either his son or daughter to the bank for withdrawal of amounts.

¶39

Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that father of the second respondent might have gone to bank along with his daughter or son or with the assistance of some other for withdrawal of amounts. In such a case, the contention of the second respondent that the alleged withdrawals stated supra have not been done by his father

¶40

¶41

has no lbrcc '-ind in the givcn circumstances, such possibility cannot bc nrled out. On cnrelul considcration of the contcnts c,1'the final report anrL lotality olthe circurnstances olthc case, the entire allegations are appears to be unfounded and imaginarl,.

¶42

In r.ierv of the foregoing discussion and thc contents of final report, it is considered that continuance ol proceedings in pursuance ol such con-rplaint would only amount to abuse of proccss o1- law.^'l'hcrelore, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the inh,:rent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash proceedings against the petitioner in Cl.C.No.845 of 2013.

¶43

I I . In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. 845 of 2013 on the file ol Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & E,xcise) at Nalgorrda, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶44

pending sha ll stand closed.

¶45

"r--

¶46

SD/-P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR -Y /TTRUE^COPY// \1, SECTION^OFFICER

¶47

To, 1 The Judicial^{l,4allistrateof First Class (Prohibition and Excise) at Nalqonda'} 2. The station^{nouseotticer, P;ii"! s;i;;Mig""@,ll Town'Nalgonda District} 5. One^{CCto Sri G. L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate turY^t'-!.} ;. il; cc i"^{sii o. satvanaiivanaYadav' Advocatetolyc)'} - ;. Y# &.'i"^{in" prorit p'ttdi'ior,Hign'courtfor the stateof relansana at} Hyderabad. [OUT] t). Two CD^CoPies 7. One Spare^CoPY obr 't-,, {

I t t I I I

I I I1 i tI { I i

HIGH COURT

DATED: 061061,2022

,,.,-<br>1 l.!
<i
22 titP 7w

¶53

ORDER

¶54

CRL.P.No.8809 of 2015

¶55

ALLOWING ]'HE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶56

¶57

B.Anuna Kumari v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Anuna Kumari v. the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp 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

Mohd Ayub Pasha, Secunderabad Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

V. Seetamahalaxmi, Hyd., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

B.Yadaiah , P.Nagabhushanam, Hyd., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

Air Liquide Engineering India PVT.LTD.(A1) Newdelhi and 3 Ors. Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

K. Sathaiah Vs Korpuri Saritha

Smt. Magdaleena Vs v. Anthony Reddy