Allowed

Naman Baldawa v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023CRLRC/1870/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders dismissing a cheque bounce complaint for default and an interim stay rejection due to the subsisting stay by this Court. The trial was restored to the VII Special Magistrate's file while pending this revision. This decision addresses jurisdictional errors and delay condonation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 18.04.2017 and 26.10.2017 set aside; complaint restored to VII Special Magistrate's file pending outcome of Criminal Revision Case No.893 of 2013.

Naman Baldawa Vs the State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENry THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1870 OF 2018

¶8

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC by the order dated 26-10-2017 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1647 of 2017 in Crl.A.SR.No.7667 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Naman Baldawa, S/o Ramksihore Baldawa, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Business having its office at Unit No.3, 1"' Floor, Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶11

)

¶12

...Petitioner/Appellant

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . State of Telangana represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of^judicature at Hyderabad.

¶15

Dr.R. Sudhakar Rao, S/o Chakradhar Rao, Aged about 58^years, Occ: Business, Rl/o Flat No.201 , Door No.3-6-527, Highness Residency, Street No.7, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad 500029.

¶16

...RespondenURespondent

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be} pleased to condone the delay of 115 days in presenting the^present Revision against the orders^passed by the^{Hon'bleMetropolitanSessionsJudge,} Hyderabad in Crl. Misc. No.164712017 in Crl.^{ASR No.7667/2017.}

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶20

Petition unrle lle:tion 482 o' Cr.P.C. praying that ir the circumstances stated in the ;rffrrla^,i1 fi ed n supplrt of the petitior,, tht-. Fligh Court may be pleased to condon' th,: delay of 25 days in represerrt n:1 ttre Crl RC SR No.922912018 befor :^,.ris; Honble Court.

¶21

Counsel for the Pet :ioner: SRI DAMODAR MUNDRA

¶22

Counsel for the Res :rc,ndent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶23

Counsel for the Res :rc,ndent No.2: SRI P. AMARENDER RF:l)trY

¶24

The Court made the 'c llowing: ORDER

¶25

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISI ON^{CASE No. 1470 0F Z)18}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The petitioner is complainant in^the trial Court.^{He fileda} complaint under Section¹³⁸ of^{NegotiableInstrumentAct against} the respondent - accused,^{whichwas initially numberedas CC} No.15 of 2013 and thereafter^{numberedas CCNo.172of 2015.On} 18.04.2018, learned Magistrate^{passed the docket order as under:}

¶30

The complainant called absent.^{No representation. A} perusal of record shows that this case is filed on^17.01.2011 and when the accused approached^{Hon'ble High Court,the} Hon'ble Hiqh Court^{granted interim stayin} Crl.RC.MP.No.1395l20l3 in^{Crl.RC.No.89312013andsince} then there is no order received^{from the Hon'ble High Court'to} his Court. Both^parties has^{not given any information to this} Court whether the stay^{is continuedor vacated.On the other} hand, this case is transferred^{from XV Specialmagistrate} Court, Erramanzil,^{Hyderabadto this Court on 27.10.2015and} since then neither the^{complainantnor the accused present in} this Court for all the adjournments^{and no representation from} anybody. It is the^{primaryduty to the parties especially the} complainant to attend Court^{and to inform the Court in writing} whether the Hon'ble High Court^{continuedthe stay or vacated} the stay order. All the^{circumstances disclosethatthe} complainant has no interest^{to pursue the matter and to} proceed further. There is no reason before me to adjourn^the matter further and therefore, I^{humblybelievethat it is a fit} case to dismiss the complaint^{for default under Section 256} Cr.P.C.

¶31

In the result, the complaint^is dismissed^{for default and} the accused is acquitted^{under Section 256of Cr.P.C.}

3oth l': r:OunSels ar(l present represe ntinq a:cuSed and the complainan Both counsel agree that as on :he cl;rtr,r of passing the order dated 13.04.2017, stay granted by thir; Court wa:; subsisting. In the said rv:nt, learned VII Special Magist-ate har.l cc,mmitted an error in pas: ng :he order dated 18.04.2017. AgEriored by the said order ciated 1.t1.04.2017, the complainant filerJ an ; plteal before the Metropolitar Sessions Court vide Criminal SR No.766,,of 2017. The appeal was at SR stage since there was derlay of 12 days. The learnec Nle rr:politan Sessi,rns Judge dismissecl t.te application seeking conr ,rtting the delay by order dated 26.10.:t017.

¶36

Since riminal revision case No.893 of 201: is s:ill pending before this i)ourt, the orders passed by toth the /II Special Magistr,lte iateC 18.04.2017 and cons(,quen. orrlsp dated 26.t0.2017 1 a:;sr:d by the l4etropolitan Sessons _uilge are illegal and imprope . l\ccordingly, both the orders are sr:t aside. The complaint is rt:sorted on thre file of the VII Spre <;i al viagistrate. Needless to: ,r,,' the trial shall be proceeded subject tr:r the outcome in Criminal Rr vision Case No.893 of 2013.

¶37

¶38

Recording the above said observations, the Criminal Revision

¶39

Case is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pending if any,shall}

stand closed.

sd''M.RffiN#[t?HXl

//TRUE^CoPY// q

SECTION^OFFICER

(with records'^{if any)}

¶47

1 The Metropolitan^Sessiont {:d9^":Ill"rabad' i lti ti:^{ffi "Jfj H:; i..Jr:: ;yl;i: ?'i8n} ""'n ro r the^{stateor reransa na}

¶48

r il*tf^{f ,'s' ffi rcs+,-xmf i:i3:""13 b"''l "'}

¶49

Two^{CD CoPies}

kam

plp )

, t

HIGH COUR'I

DATED:23106iit023

.. --- ' -aa-::. -:
1- ;- 1:.rA f t:. crA).
, 'J (
'l
...
i :i 5rt')S j
_)
'',/'./

¶58

ORDER

¶59

CRLRC.No.1t70 of 2018

¶60

DISPOSING⁽ )I: THE CRIMINAL REVISION Cr r,fiE

¶61

@tf,ta fr,t

Naman Baldawa v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naman Baldawa v. the State of Telangana

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

Boggarapu Lingaiah Vs Chittipolu Laxminarasimha

Dasari Boomaiah Vs the State of Telanagana

Mohammed Aleemuddin Khan Vs the State of Telangana

Pesaragayala Rajender Reddy (A-1), Tallapalliguda[v],Andanr. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

The State of a.P, Vs Manthri Sailoo

K. Vijay Kumar Goud , Vijay, Secunderabad Vs the State of a.P., Hyderabad