Dismissed

Smt. S.Nirmala v. K.Arun Kumar

Telangana HC27 Jun 2023CRLRC/1499/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court dismissed grounds challenging conviction under the Cheque Bouncing Act. The Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 4.00 lakhs, ordered payment of Rs. 2.80 lakhs within six weeks, made imprisonment a contingent sentence, and enhanced compensation as relief.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation to Rs. 4.00 lakhs; payment of Rs. 2.80 lakhs within six weeks; imprisonment of three months as conditional sentence; all miscellaneous petitions disposed off.

Smt. S.Nirmala Vs K.Arun Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t-I i

¶2

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶3

IN HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE N O: 1499 OF 2019

¶8

criminal Revision case under sections 3s7 & 40i of cr.p.c- aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 14.02.2018 passed in c.c. No. 16 of 20i5 on the file of the court of the X special Magistrate, Hyderabad confirming the Judgment dated 18.12.2019 passed in crl.A. No. 158 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the [/etropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. S.Nirmala, Wio Sri Ranganath Hindu, aged about 45 years, Occ. Central Government employee R/o A.A.O, C.P.W.D, CFennai. Tamilnidu.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

K.Arun Kumar, S/o K.Manohar Hindu, aged about 43 years, Occ. private Employee R/o LIG 386, Raod No.3, Kuk;tpalty, Rangi Reddy District.

¶14

The_ State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad. ...ReSpOruOerutS

¶15

lA NO:^'f OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad to receive the check petition of the Petitioner / Respondent /Complainant and permit him to withdraw the amount of Rs 2,50,000/- ( Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousands) deposited by the Respondent /revision Petitioner / Accused of CC No 16 of 2015 on complaince of laMul obligations and pending disposal the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. SYAMSUNDER RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI D SURESH KUMAR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Public Prosecutor

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

TI{ } HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE) K.SUI.IEIIDER CB^rn[ryA! LEyISIaU GASE No. .!rpe oF i:ole

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

I Thc r t'r isr 'r- pe titi..cr is aggrieved by hi; con, ir:ti< n lr.der Section 138 .f tltt: Ncsr_ Lrrrl;Lt: Irsrr-,mcnrs Act (for short ,th: \ct,) r,irle judgment in C C No' r(> c' 2t)1.5' crirrecl 14.02-2or8 passerc bv thc X Special Magistrate. [,r'r e -a,rad. * Irich u.as co,firm:d br the Nfetropolitan sessr.ns 'Jrrcigc Frrtrcrabaci rrcrc judgment in crimir ir A,rpeal No.r5g of 20lu. darcri l>:.1 l.l()19

¶24

llricfl-v, L!_.e :.:r:;e of rhc r:omplainant/p.Vr. 1 is lhat he advanced hand loan rt Rr .1.,.00 lal:lts ir.r the presence of p,/,s 3 and 4to petitiorler itt r r,.in. r.)n rec:etvirrg the said amount, tw ) prc,mrssory notes trxs.P5 and i,l' rr e^-r: signed l;-r rhe revision petitioner.

¶25

Tou,ards rc.l a,ment ol the said amount, <:heqre,; Exs.pl and p3 were issued' Ex r) is rrateci 15. r r .2014 and Ex.p3 cleLt:cr ori. 12.2014. on presentation, the ;arcl cheqrres u,ere returned unpaicl. -e6al notice u.as issued ancl si,ct: I rt appeil:Lnt larled to pay the r;aid a*tount, complaint was lod ged .

¶26

Both the Cr>ur^.t; trelor.r. fbund that there was no pr()pel. explanation as to hoq, the :.hec1 rt:s and promissorl notes were signt<1 by the accused

¶27

¶28

and u,ere in possession of^{P.W. 1. It was also found that the ground of} P.W. t having no hnancial condition to^{advance the loan to be incorrcct.} The accused / revision^petitioner failed^to rebut the^{presumptionraised.} Both the colrrts below found the accused / revision^{petitioner guiltr'.}

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the^{revisionpetitioner raised very} same grounds which were raised in^{the Courtsbelow regardingcapacity} of P.W.1 to lend the amount and that^{the evidenceof witnesses P.Ws.2to} 4 cannot be believed. As already^{stated,the Courts have given reasons} for accepting the version of^P.W. I^{whichis supported by documentary} evidence ald disbelieved the^{version of the accused.}

¶30

There are no grounds to interfere^{u'ith the concurrent hndingsof} guilt of the revision petitioner. It is not disputed^{that out of the} compensation amolrnt of^{Rs.2,40,O00/-granted, Rs.1,20,0O0/-was} already paid. Since the^{case is nearly ten years old, this Courtdeems it} appropriate to enhance the^{quantumof compensation to Rs.4.00 lakhs.} The accused shall^pay the^{amount of Rs.2,8O,O00/- within a periodof six} weeks from the date of receipt^of a^{copy of this order. The amount of} Rs.2,80,000/- shall be deposited^{before the trial Court withinthe sard} period. If the petitioner fails to^pay the^{remaining arnount of} Rs.2,80,000/-, she shall undergo^{imprisonmentof 3 months.Needless to}

¶31

¶32

say that thl st:rr e lcc of irrrprisonmcnt imposed b-r- btt^'r tne Courts belorv is herebr s('1 asii 1(l

¶33

With tl-rrr strict morliflc ilrion of sentence of t:nprisonment and compensati,)n, tl € Crirrin:rl Rr:r isrot.r Case is di;pos,e rl off Corrsequcntly, miscellaneoLts rt1 plrcations, rI anr pending in this ]ri'isicn, sha1l stand closed.

¶34

s'1/' ll; llll+)N$E[ts?Hxfl

//TRUE^COPY//

S,EC^{TION OFFICER}

To,

The X^{Special t\ragrstrate'Hyderabad (with recordsif any)}

¶40

1 2 The Melropol^{a r SessionsJudge' Hyderabad'}

¶41

2 *yg^{Cr)s lo ht: Public Prosecutor'HighCourt fo' the Sil'rte of Telangana'at} HyderabadtO^{)1 )'}

¶42

One CC^{to S tlS SYAI/SUNDERRAO' Advocale[OP'l':)]}

¶43

4 5 One CC^{to ST I D SURESH KUTMAR'Advocate [()PUC]}

¶44

5 6. Two^{CD CoPer;} DL kam

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710612023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1499 of 1019

¶50

I (<br>1 r All|] 208
<br>:-t ..,,/

¶51

Crl.R.C is disposed of

¶52

Smt. S.Nirmala v. K.Arun Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. S.Nirmala v. K.Arun Kumar

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

Shaik Jeelani and 2 Others, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

K.Savitri, Vs K.Narasappa

Narayanalal Vyas, Vs The State of Telangana

Kurma Kamalakar and 4 Others Vs the State of A.P.

Bhutreddy Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Raju P. Shah Vs The State of Telangana