Dismissed

Boggarapu Lingaiah v. Chittipolu Laxminarasimha

Telangana HC22 Jun 2023CRLRC/1268/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding acquittal in a cheque bounce case, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts' finding that the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt as the Civil Court had dismissed the recovery suit.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

What the court decided

Boggarapu Lingaiah Vs Chittipolu Laxminarasimha — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^{3251 I}

¶2

IN " THE^{HIGH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE TWENTY SECONDDAYOF-JUNE} "'- TWo iHousnruo AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRt JUSTTCE K.SURENDER}

¶6

CRIMI NAL^{REvlsloNCASENO: 1268oF 2018}

¶7

Criminal^{Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC against the} order dated^01-06-2017 l^{passed in Crl A No 62 o'f 2014 on the file of the Court of} the V*^{AdditionarsessionsJudgeat Miryarguda preferredagainst the judgment} dated^{10-02-2014passed in C C No 62 ol 2010on the file of the Court of the} Additional^{Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Miryalguda}

¶8

¶9

Between:

¶10

Boooarapu^{Lingaiah'S/o B'Veeraiah' Aged 63 years' Occ - Agriculture'R/o'} ""],iX'iliioi i,"irriltn Najar' Miryatsuoa'^{Nalgonda District'}

¶11

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COMPLAIANT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Chittipolu^{Laxminarasimha,S/o Chandrashekar' Aged 44 yearsOcc-} Business,^{Rio-1 5-Mo, va;iil;;;;ri;al'uirva-isuda' Nalgonda District}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

¶15

2 The State^{of Telangana, Rep by. its Public Prosecutor' High Court of} Telangana^{andA.P., Hyderabad} ...RESPONDENT

¶16

IA NO: 10^{F 2018}

¶17

petition under Section^{482 cpc prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{firedin supportof the petition,the High courtmaybe pleasedto} dispense^{with filing of Certified copy of orderin CC No 62 of 2010 on the file of} the Additional^{Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass at Miryalguda}

¶18

lA NO:^{2oF 2018}

¶19

Petition^{under Section 5 of LimitationAct CPC praying that in the} circumstances^{statedrn the affidavit filedin support of the Petition, the High} Court^{may be pleased may be pleasedtocondone the delay of 194 daysin filing} revlslon

¶20

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI K' JAGADISHWARREDDY} Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1: NONEAPPEARED} Counsel^{for the Respondent No'2: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR} The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1268 of^2O18

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The Criminal Revision Case is filed by^the

¶24

petitioner/complainant under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal .Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C),^aggrieved by^the judgment dated O2.O6.O2Ol7 passed in Cr1.A.No.62 of 2Ol4 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Sessions^Judge, Miryalguda, whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge has I.) confirmed the^judgment passed-in C.C.No.62 of 2010 by^the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class^at Miryalguda, acquitting the accused for the offence under^Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶25

Briefly, the case of the complainant^{is that he had given} hand loan of Rs.2,00,OOO/- to the accused. At the^{time of giving} hand loan, a demand promissory note^{wab executedfor the said} amount in favour of the complainant^{promising to repaythe} same with compound interest @^Rs.2 /-^{per month per hundred.} The accused issued a cheque bearing^{No.698709, dated} L2.LO.2OO9 for Rs.3,4O,000/- drawn on^{State Bank of India,} Miryalaguda towards^{part dischargeof amount due under the}

¶26

¶27

promissory note. The said cheque was presented and returned for the reason 'Accour.rt Closed'. The complainart issued legal notice on 28.10.2009 and thc sarne was received b5, the accused but he failed to make the pavment. Therefore, the complainant filed a criminal complajnt before the learned Adclitional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mrn,alaguda vide C.C.No.62 of 2O2O

¶28

The Iparned Magistratc }-raving adduced evidt:nce found that the demand promissory note u'as not produced before the Court and further on the basis of the said promissory note a suit vide OrS.No.222 of 2009, rvhich suit was dismissed by the Civil .) Court

¶29

The learned Magistrirte further held that since the complainant has failed Lo prove that there is a legally enforceablc debt. which is <'vident from the fact t.hat Civil Court dismissed his c1aim, the learned Magistrate deemed it appropriate to acquit the accused.

¶30

On appeal, the learnr:d VIII Additiona-l Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda vide Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2O14, concurred with the findings of the learned 1{agistrate.

¶31

¶32

I I

¶33

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant has filed present Criminal Revision Case.

¶34

In a case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, initial burden is always on the complainant to show that the cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt. In the present case, the competent Civil Court found that there was no outstanding amount as against the promissory note, which was giten at the time of hand loan. The question of there being any enforceable debt on the cheque, which was subsequently issued on the basis of the promissory note, does not arise

¶35

I do not find any unreasonableness of the Courts below in its finding that there is no enforceable debt on the cheque in question when the Civil Court has dismissed the suit filed for recovery of said amount under the promissory note. Further, this Court does not find any infirmity with the orders of the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalguda and learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Miryalguda and the revision of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

¶37

Accordingly. this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

¶38

Hor,rrever, this Court u,hile dcciding the appeal against^the acquittal cannol interfere tLnlcss the findings are unreasonable or not based on r-ecord.

¶39

Miscellaneous Petitions pr:r-rding, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶40

Sd/. M.^{RAMANA KRISHNA} DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// tlg

¶41

SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

'1 . The Vlll Additional Sessions Judge^{at Miryalguda}

¶44

i. fh"^{nJoitional Judiciallirlaqistrateof First Class at Miryalguda}

¶45

trwo CCs^{to the punric proiecutor'HighCourt for the State of Telangana} )t Hyderabad [OUT]

¶46

+. b..n"'Cc^{to Sri k Jagadishwar Reddy''Advocate [OPUCI}

¶47

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210612023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1268^{of 2018}

¶52

/." ()c \ {
/, i' (:, ,
i
irj
1B AUE 2M
li '-
t
,./
't'
-:. -l.

¶53

DISMISSING^THE CRIMINAL^REVISION

¶54

Lo>

Boggarapu Lingaiah v. Chittipolu Laxminarasimha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Boggarapu Lingaiah v. Chittipolu Laxminarasimha

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

Ajay Joshi, Vs The State of Telangana

Sandepaka Veeraswamy Vs the State of A.P. and 2 Others

Avadhutha Mahesh, , Uma Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana

Dasari Boomaiah Vs the State of Telanagana

Mohammed Aleemuddin Khan Vs the State of Telangana

Mohammed Aleemuddin Khan Vs the State of Telangana