Allowed

Kammari Srinivas Achary, , Kummary Srinivas v. Mutakari Anajaiah

Telangana HC3 Jan 2022CRLRC/354/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision petition challenged a dismissal order for default in a cheque dishonour case (C.C. No. 228 of 2017). The High Court, noting the complainant's inability to appear due to his counsel's death, quashed the docket order and remanded the matter for expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

The docket order dated 04.03.2021 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodangal, for expeditious disposal.

Kammari Srinivas Achary, , Kummary Srinivas Vs Mutakari… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 354OF 2021

¶7

Criminal Revision filed Under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the^Order made in C.C.No.228 of 2017 dated 04.03.2021 on the file of the Judicial^{Magistrate of} First Class at Kodangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kammari Srinivas Achary, @ Kummary Srinivas, S/o. K.Kalappa, Aged about^{45 years,} Occ. Business R/o. H.N6.5-96/8, New Bustand, Maddur Village and^{MandalMahabub} Nagar District, Telangana State

¶10

...PET|TIONER/COMPLAINANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Mutakari Anajaiah, S/o. M. Keshappa Aged about 30^years, Occ. Business,^R/o H.No.162, S.C Colony, MaddurVillage and Mandal, Mahabub Nagar^District, Telangana State

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt of for the state} of relangana at Hyderabad

¶14

,REspoNDENTS/AccusED

¶15

Gounsel for the Petitioner : SRl. N. BHUJANGA RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Public Prosecutor

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN C]R I \II^{AL REVISION CASE No.354 oF 2t)21

¶20

ORDEIi:

¶21

Heard Mr. N Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and ieamed Assistant I ublic Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. Despite sen ice of norice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶22

The pre;ent criminal revision is filed by the petitioner - complainant to set aside the docket order dated 04.03.2021 passed in C.C. No.228 of 2Al7 by the leamed Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Kodangal.

¶23

The petiti,,ner herein is the complainant in C.C. No.228 of 2017 and the offence alie 3ed againsr respondent No. 1 is under Section - 138 ol the Negotiable Inst uments Act, I 88 1 .^'f he said cornplaint fi led by thc petitioner - cornpl Linant in C.C. No.228 of 2017 was disrnissed lbr default on 04.03.20 .l .

¶24

Accordin; to the petitioner herein, the father of the learned counsel for the pet tioner - complainant had expired on 28.02.201, and due to the personal inconvenience, his counsel could not appear before the Court below or 04.03.2021 and, therefore, the said complaint was dismissed on 04.03.2021. There is specific assertion to the said effect in the grounds of revis on.

¶25

In the doc <et order, there is specific mention that tl.re matter is posted for trial fron 26.09.2019. The C.C. is of 2017. It is relevant ro

¶26

¶27

melttion that this Coun has issued Standard Operating Procedure (SOp) fron-r time to time rvitl-r regard to conducting hearing in trial Courl due to COVID-19 Panden'ric.

¶28

In view ofthe above, the docket order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the leamed Magistrate in C.C.No.228 of 2017 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodangal, with a direction to dispose of the said C.C. in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner shall co-oper.ate with the Court below in concluding trial.

¶29

The present Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶30

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the

¶31

Criminal Revision shall stand closed.

¶32

Sd/-CH.VEN^KATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR w,' ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶33

To 1. The Judicial^{Magistrate of First Class' Kodangal' I/lahabubnagar District'}

¶34

Z. On" CC^{to Sri NiBhujangaRao,Advocate (OPUC)} -Court ior the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶35

1. Two CCs^{to pubtic pro..i.rttrlHtgh} (our)

¶36

Two CD^CoPies

¶37

One SPare^CoPY

¶38

Kj ..p

¶39

HIGH COURT

¶40

DATED:0310112)22

¶41

(a 1 $E $iA :,€:
( ()
.):v 1
r,) 23 F[8202 ' l

¶42

ORDER

¶43

CRLRC.No.354 o12021

¶44

Disposing of tlre Crl.R.C. t9F\ \u$ r)-

Kammari Srinivas Achary, , Kummary Srinivas v. Mutakari Anajaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kammari Srinivas Achary, , Kummary Srinivas v. Mutakari Anajaiah

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

M/s. Sri Sai Amrutha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s Go Green Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs State of Telangana and 9 others

M. Lakshma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Thatikonda Satish Kumar, And 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Nikhilesh Vs The State of Telangana

Bandari Anil Vs The State of Telangana