Dismissed

Renu Singh v. Ramakant Gilda and Another

Telangana HC12 Jul 2023CRLP/3830/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Petition No. 3830 of 2014 disposed of a petition seeking to quash a cheque dishonour case under Section 482 CrPC. The court dismissed the petition for default as there was no representation or appearance by the petitioner on the assigned hearing date despite listing for dismissal. The Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed on merits, citing Section 138 NI Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 3830 of 2014 is dismissed for default.

Renu Singh Vs Ramakant Gilda and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

t^32es I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3830 OF 2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

Renu Singh, W/o Anil Kumar Singh R/o H.No.4 1 -143l'1, Pipeline Road, Sanjay Puri Nagar Jagathgirigutta R-R District

¶11

...pETrroNER/AccusED No.2

¶12

AND

¶13

'1. Ramakant Gilda, S/o Hanuman Bagas Gilda, Being Proprielor of Tulsiram Hanuman Bagas Gilda having its Office at 15.02.2O5[r/aharajgunji Hyderabad being rep by his Manager and Special Power of Attorney Holder Sri Prahlad Totla s/o Srinivasju Totla occ Service R/o 3-5-805 Premsagar Apartment Hyderguda Hyderabad (Complarnant in CC No.320 of 2013)

¶14

rhe State of AP.,, Public Prosecutor High Court_of AP al[1ilf,38lrr*ro"r.

¶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 quash the CC No.320/2013 pending on the file of the ll Addl.Chief Magistrate Magistrate Hyderabad against the petitioner

¶16

l.A NO:2 OF 2014(CRLPMP. NO: 3471 OF 20141

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in CC.No.320/2013 on the file of the ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad pending disposal of the CrlP.

¶18

This Petition comrng on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. R. Machavaram, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 2

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

I \

¶21

HONC URABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENfT(}(.)PI.L

¶22

CI:LMINAL PETITION No.383O of 201,1

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Thc p esent Criminal Petitior-r is fil,:d lurrler Sect.ion 482 of Clr P i to quash the C.C.No.32O ol 201i1 on the file of the ll A lrlitional Chiel Metropolitan Mag slrate Cum Principal iVli g strate of JJ Board, Hl.clerab rd

¶25

No re1 resentation on bel-ralf of the Jretrt Lc,r: :r, He;rrcl Mr. Vizarat l-r Ali, learned Assistant P -rb1ir: l)rosecrLtor appearr rLg lt r- re spondent- State.

¶26

t",

¶27

Mr. Vi. ;arath A1i, Le arned Assistant l)ub1ir: [)r'o;ccutor submits :'h rt this rnatter pertains to Serct o.t i 38 ol Negotiable L rstruments Act, 1BB 1 and the lou,er Corrrt ltas appreciated -he evidence on record and passed at>propriate orders ilnd -herefore, seeks to dismiss l,tre c^-iminal petrtlon.

¶28

A per.rsal of record shows that theie is lto representatir n on behalf of the petitione' on 2,'7 05.2023 arrd O4.O7 2t)23. Even today also, thert' rs no

¶29

i:a

¶30

¶31

representation on behalf of the petitioner in spite of listing the matter under the caption "for dismissal". This shows that the petitioner is not evincing any interest to prosecute the case.

¶32

[n view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court without going into the merits, is inclined to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶33

Accordingly, the Crimina-I Petition is dismissed for

¶34

default

¶35

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sha-ll stand

¶36

closed

¶37

Sd/- A. V. S. PRASAD ASSISTANHAEGISTRAR //TRUE copy// SECNM OFFICER

¶38

To,

¶39

1 The ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - cum - principal Magistrate of JJ Board, Hyderabad.

¶40

2 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. tourl

¶41

One CC to Sri V. R. Machavaram, Advocate(OpUC) 4. Two CD Copies

MBC

Pf'?^.

)

HIGH COURT

t)ATtil.): 1210712023

¶47

-ta :l iil
l/- 11
ii []] ?u3
-ORDER

¶48

CRLP.NT> 3830 of 2014

¶49

DISMISSING THE CR.IMIIII\L PETITION

¶50

FOR DEFAULT

¶51

,1 \ Pllou k<sup>Y3 ) \

Renu Singh v. Ramakant Gilda and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Singh v. Ramakant Gilda 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

R.Purushothama Chary, Warangal Dt., Vs R.Kavya , Santhoshi, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

M/S. Sehgal Motors Pvt. Ltd., and 2 Others Vs State of Telangana and Another

Dudem Rathamma, Karimnagar., Vs Dudem Narsiah, Karimnagar Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Lavarthy Santosh Vs the State of A.P. and Another

N.Ravindra Reddy Vs the State of Telangana and 2 Others

Taher Ali Siddiqui, Hyd Vs Syed Rashed Ahmed, Hyd