Dismissed

M/s. Sanrachna (India) Inc., v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Feb 2023CRLP/2189/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a batched criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash and stay proceedings regarding cheque dishonour, the High Court of Telangana held that it is not a fit case for quashing at this stage as the petitioners have an opportunity to contest the matter in trial. The Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the 2013 case on merits within six months of the order. The petition was

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with directions to the trial Court to dispose of C.C.No 88 of 2013 on merits within six months.

M/s. Sanrachna (India) Inc., Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

a32s4l

I III I I I i I i

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:2189 OF 2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. Sanrachna (lndia) !nc.,,213-215, Rajpur Extension, New Delhi -1 10 068. Rep. by its Authorised Signatory [t/r. [til. Tewatia.

¶11

tMr. tvl. Tewatia,, S/o. Mukharam, Aged about 52 Years, Authorised Signatory of M/s. Sanrachna (lndia) lnc., 213-215, Ralpur Extension, New Delhi -1 10 068

¶12

...PETITIONERYACCUSED NO. 1 & 2

¶13

AND

¶14

State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT NO.1/RESPONDENT

¶16

M/S. Daaj Hotels and Resorts Private Limited, (A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1 956) Office at - # 2O7 , Ashoka Bhoopal Chambers, 146/4, S.P.Road, Secunderabad - 500 003. Rep by its Authorised Signatory/ Senior Manager - Mr. S.S.R. Murthy S/o S.S.Rangacharyulu, Rl/o Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENT No.2/COMPLAINANTS

¶18

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 C.C.No 88 of 2013 on the file of the Hon'ble ll Special Mdtropolitan Magistrate at Erramanzil in respect of Petitioners / Accused No.1 & 2

¶19

LA. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLPMP. NO: 1939 OF 2014)

¶20

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. 88 cd 2013 on the file of the Hon'ble ll Special Metropolitan Magistrate at Erramanzil including appearance of the Petitioners / Accused No.1 & 2, pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶21

¶22

(, t{ . I t til',):l\9 ol :/)/1

¶23

anrorrnt olr I{ -t) i]07) _ dr-arvn or-r Standalct^{(lhari,:rrec.} [Jan]i. Vasanthvihar, Jr.er', Dell-ri and the alnount has been r.crlcar,ccl. tltc arlvance l)a.rlr lnt rvas rnade to accused No. 1 b-v lhc co trplainanl

¶24

Basing :rL the documents filed befole ti-re Cou..t, :ouplcd with the su,ol I statelnent ol the complainant, rhc trial Cor-u1 has tal<en cortniza c,r rrnder Section 138 of the Ncgotiatrlr, lnslt-umc,lts Act and lssucr suurrnons to the accused persons. Agu^. ,. r erl bl Lhe si.icl clockeL or [:-, the present quash petitior-r is fi1ed

¶25

On pelt ;al cf the recold, this Court is oltlte corsi lcr,-'d r icu that it is not a fit. c.tse to quash the proceedings iit this,.,lagc., as the pctitioners/acc .rsed Nos.1 and 2 have the opportunity :^-rd right to contesl the m ltl.er before the trial Court by adduci t!: er idence T're trial Cour , on considering the evidence adduced t,()tbre it, will dr:cide as to^..r'hether any offence under Section 1 18 ol the Negotiable Ins .rrrments Act is made out or not. Since t:: Calendar. Crse is of the year 2013, the trial Court is direcred to rlispcse it of otr merits n,itl i:r six months frour the date of reccipt c,t a r:op1, o1th is ordet'

¶26

-1

¶27

(; t(.., J (-rl. l'. \ o. 2 I 89 oJ )0 I 4

! l

l lr

\ViLh the above directions, this crintiual petition is disrnissecl.

¶33

Pcnding miscellaneous appiications, if any, shall stand

¶34

closed.

¶35

Sd/.N.SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The ll Special lvletropolitan Megistrate at Erramanzil, Hyderabad,

¶40

One CC to M/S.T.JAYANT JAISOORYA Advocate IOPUC]

¶41

Two CC's to Public Prosecutor High Court For The State Of Telangana Hyderabad (OUT)

¶42

Two CD Copies

¶43

One spare copy

HIGH COURT

DATEI):20/0212123

,a-',,
t: -3t i ltlE jjt (
(<br>a
. I tiiAl] 20?3
:l
\ irl
lrrr.rr-i .. ,_

¶50

ORDER

¶51

GRLP.No.2189 tfi 2014

¶52

CR!M!II{AL PETITION IS DISMISSED

¶53

G{r',4
@
fu+"
\op.u

M/s. Sanrachna (India) Inc., v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sanrachna (India) Inc., v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Kasireddy Prasad , Kasetti Prasad , Kasetti Venkata Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Aluri Mogulaiah Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others

R.Rajeshwar Reddy and Another Vs State of Ap.

Mrs. Shamim Banu Vs Mrs. Shaik Noor Jahan and Anothers

Butti Kumaraswamy Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Bashseeruddin and Anothers Vs State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers