Allowed

Cyma Inratech India Private Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC4 Oct 2023CRLP/11501/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that since the connected Civil Court dismissed the suit due to lack of evidence for a legally enforceable debt without any appeal being filed, the criminal trial would be futile.

What did the court decide?

The complaint in C.C.N.I. No. 12715 of 2022 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate was quashed.

Cyma Inratech India Private Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1'1501 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

'1. Cyma lnratech lndia Private Ltd,

¶8

having its Registered Office at 7th floor Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad rep. by its Director Raleshwara Rao Gundavaram (A-1)

¶9

Rajeshwara Rao Gundavaram, S/o G. Madhava Rao, aged 56 years,

¶10

Occ business (Director of Cyma lnfratech lndia Pvt Ltd) R/o Flat no. 403, Block 1,

¶11

Raintree park Kukatpally Housing Board Kukatpally,

¶12

Hyderabad (A-2)

¶13

Prabhakar Reddy Guduru, S/o G. Raja Reddy, aged 53 years, Occ business, R/o flat No. 50201, Pine Block lndu Fortune Fields gardens, Phase^'13 Kukatpally, Hyderabad (A-3)

¶14

E Sudarshan, S/o E. Arjun Kumar, aged 35 years, Occ private employee (Accountant in Cyma lnfratech lndia Pvt Ltd), Rl/o Block-100, Sai Krishna Enclave Badangapeta, RR district (A-5) ...Petitioners/Accused

¶15

...Petitioners/Accused

¶16

AND

¶17

' ,^{1. TheState of Telangana} th6ugh FubticEoiecrior of High Court, at Hyderabad

¶18

. ...RespondenUComplainant

¶19

Baddam Anantha Reddy, S/o. late B. Padma Reddy, aged 56 years, Occ business Rl/o villa No. 50, lndu Fortune Fields Kukatpally Housing Board, Phase 13 Kukatpally, Hyderabad ...RespondenU De-facto Complainant

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of CI.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 complaint in CCNI No. 12715 of 2022, on the file of the court of Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Court Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶21

1.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLPMP. NO: 12731 OF 2016)

¶22

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, pursuant to the complaint in CC No. 9112016 on the file of the cou( of XVI Special Magistrate at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, so far as this petitioner is concerned-

¶23

Behveen:

¶24

Baddam Anantha Reddy, S/o. late B. Padma Reddy, aged 56 years, Occ business R/o villa No. 50, lndu Fortune Fields Kukatpally Housing Board, Phase 13 Kukatpally, Hyderabad

¶25

...Petitioner/ Respondent No.2

¶26

And

¶27

'I . Cyma lnratech lndia Private Ltd, having its Registered Office at 7th floor Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad rep. by its Director Rajeshwara Rao Gundavaram^(A-1)

¶28

Rajeshwara Rao Gundavaram, S/o G. Madhava Rao, aged 56^years, Occ business (Director of Cyma lnfratech lndia Pvt Ltd) R/o Flat no. 403, Block 1, Raintree park Kukatpally Housing Board Kukatpally, Hyderabad (A-2)

¶29

Prabhakar Reddy Guduru, S/o G. Rala Reddy, aged 53 years, Occ business, R/o flat No.^50201, Pine Block lndu Fortune Fields^gardens, Phase 13 Kukatpally, Hyderabad (A-3)

¶30

E Sudarshan, S/o E. Arjun Kumar, aged 35^years, Occ private employee (Accountant in Cyma lnfratech lndia Pvt^Ltd), R/o Block-100, Sai Krishna Enclave Badangapeta, RR district (A-5) ...Respondents/Petitioners

¶31

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶32

State of Telangana through Public Prosecutor Of High Court of at Hyderabad

¶33

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016( CRLPMP. NO: 14689 OF 2016)

¶34

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 vacate the order dated 05.08.2016^passed by this Court in CC^no. 9112016 on the file of the court of XVI Special Magistrate at Somaiiguda, Hyderabad, so far as this^petitioner is concerned.

¶35

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^Sri Vivak Jain, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf^of the Respondent No. 1 and Sri P. Shiva Kumar, Advocate for Respondent^No.2.

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

¶38

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶40

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11501 OF 2016

¶41

ORDER:-

¶42

This Criminal Petition is filed under^{Section 482 of the} Code of Criminal Procedure,^{1973 (for} short^{'Cr.P.C.'),by the} petitioners/ accused Nos. I to 4 to quash the complaintⁱⁿ C.C.N.1.No.1,27 15 of 2022 on the lile learned^{VIII Metropolitan} Magistrate, Manoranjan Court Complex, Nampally,^Hyderabad registered lor the offence under Section 138 of^Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶43

It is the contention of the learned counsel for^the petitioners that the Civil Suit i.e. O.S.No.347 of 2016 filed^by the responde nt No.2 I de facto complainant in respect^{of the} subject chequc sas dismissed holding that he is not entitled^to recover the suit amount and also on the ground that there^u'as no legally enforceable debt and further the version of taking loan of Rs.4O,O0,OOO/ - was not believed by the Civil^Court.

¶44

It is further contended that no appeal was filed^against the said judgment in O.S.No.347 of 2O16, dated^13.04.2023 and the said orders have become^final.

¶45

¶46

On perusal of the contents of the Civil Suit and also the complaint filed herein the issue is one and the same. Tl-re Civil Court has discussed the transactions and finclings at Para 3l and 32 which are as follows:-

¶47

In uieu of the foregoing discussion, it ls seen tLlat tlle plaintiff has Jiled to demonstrate existence of any documents in support of tlte alleged loon transactions bettoeen himself and the defendant Nos.l to 3. Secondlg, the plait.trff failed to demonstrate from what source the amount of Rs.40,O0,000/- u.tas pooled before handing ouer th.e amount to the defendant Nos.2 and 3. Thirdlg, the plaintiff failed to cxamine onA pitnesses or person associated Luith the loan transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.2 and 3. There is absolutelg no doanmentary euidence in proof of the alleged loan transaction of Rs.4O,0O,OOO/ - except the oral uersion and the cheques marked under Exhibits A2 and A3. Except ttrc self seruing uersion of the plaintiJ-f s oral euidence and the cheques for an antount of Rs.5,0O,OOO/- each marked under Exhibits A2 and A3, th.ere is no other docuntent to proue the plaintiffs case.

¶48

Ideallg, the plaintiff as collateral security should haue taken cheqttes for total atnount of Rs.40,OO,O0O/ - as is the general practice. Since satd cteques were not auarlable it appears that the plainttlf has uLilized cheques in his custodg to support his uersion of an

¶49

¶50

alleged loan transaction. It is pertinent to note tlut, tte cheques A2 and A3 are ignored, except the oral uersion of the plaintiff, there is nothing on record to proue the plaintiffs case. The plaintiffs case thus, suffers from inherent lacunae in compaison to tLE documents marked bg the defendant in 'B' series, more particularlg, Exhibit Bs-statment of account of M/ s. CYMA Infratech Piuate LimitedDekndant No.l, ExLribit 84 counterfooil and Exhibit BS-letter addressed to the Manager, State Bank of India, Temple Road Branch, Prima facie raise the probabilitg that the defendants issued the cheques as collateral securitg for the loan taken bg M/ s.CYMA Infratech Priuate Limited (Defendant No. 1) from M/ S. Pious Electronics Priuote Limited.

¶51

In a case for the prosecution under Section 138 of N.l.Act, it is necessary that there should be legally enforceable debt on the cheques drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. The Competent Civil Court has come to conclusion after adducing evidence of both sides that the debt as claimed by the complainant cannot be believed and accordingly dismissed the suit.

¶52

In the said circumstances, the prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I.Act cannot be continued. Also. in rhe background of no appeal being preferred against the judgment

¶53

¶54

in the said Civil Suit, the findings of the Civil Suit has attained

¶55

finality. The Criminal Court ca-nnot come to a different conclusion on the very sarne facts, since evidence is the same. Criminal trial would be a futile exercise.

¶56

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The complaint in C.C.N.l.No.l27 15 of 2022 on the file learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Court Complex,

¶57

Nampally. Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶58

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶59

closed.

¶60

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT T:GPTRAR $/ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFIGER

¶61

To,

¶62

The State of^{Telangana,throughPublic Prosecutor of High Court at} Hyderabad

¶63

O-ne CC to Sri Vivek Jain,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to Sri^{P. Shiv Kumar, Advocate} [OPUC] +.^t Oi. CCAto fne^{Public Prosecutor,High-Courtfor the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OPUC]

¶65

Two CD CoPies

c\rp

HIGH COURT

DATED.O4l1012023

ORDER

CRLP.No.1 1501 of 2016

¶71

-
] , ,.1'. ' =t----' :"j t: :<br>Y
2 B rtB ?t?r .l.r
1-:

DESPAl

¶72

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

¶73

$De*pvu

Cyma Inratech India Private Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cyma Inratech India Private Ltd. and Ors. v. the 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

Nabeela ( Syeda Nabila Firdous ) Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Saba Wajid Ali Bakayath Vs Shahid Nazir Sayed

Mrs. Saba Wajid All Bakayath Vs Shahid Nazir Sayed

Shaik Mohammed Bawazeer, Hyderabad., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

K.Samantha,Karimnagar Dt and Anr., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Bantu Saraiah Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another