Dismissed

Sunitha Bhansali v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jun 2023CRLRC/318/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the petition to set aside the acquittal of an accused. The court held that no legally enforceable debt was established regarding cheques issued for property purchase disputes. It noted the petitioner failed to pursue civil remedies to safeguard her title.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No. 318 of 2018 was dismissed and miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Sunitha Bhansali Vs State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1. ]

¶2

t I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

¶5

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY^{OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

| ,."'

¶7

rHE HoNouRf",-= a*, JUST.E K.suRENDER

¶8

I CRIMINAL REVISION CASE^{No: 318 OF 2018}

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed Under i^{Sections 397 & 4O1 of Cr.P.C. aggrievedby} I the Order dated: 11-08-2016 in CrlA.No.6'11^{ol 2015 on the file of the Court of the} I Special Judge for Trial of Offenc6s Under^{S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum-VlAdditional} I Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Sdcunderabad,^{confirmingthe judgment dated:25-6-} l 201 5 in CC.No. 43 oI 2014^(Old CC.No.991^{of 2013) on the file of the Court of the Vll} Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:^i;

¶11

Smt Sunitha Bhansali, Wo uresh Bhansali, Aged 47^years, Occ: Housewife, R.o. Plot No. 13, Ratna Co-operative Society^{Opp:Hanumantemple,Sikh} Village, Secunderabad

¶12

... Petitioner/AppellanUComplainant

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public^{Prosecutor,High Court at Hyderabad}

¶15

2 K.Manohar Reddy, S/o Lale K. Samua Reddy, Aged 69^{years,Occ: Business,} R/o. 3-43-145, KrishnaPuri, Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad.

¶16

...Respondents/RespondenUAccused

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAVI CHANDRAN

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent^No.1 : PUBLIC^PROSECUTOR

¶19

I Counsel forthe Respondent Nci.2: SRI^D. MADHAVA^RAo

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE I. ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,SUIIENI)ER

¶22

CRITT IT NAL REVISION CASE No.318 OF 2018

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Crirrr rerl Revision Case is filed under liectiot; 397 and 401 of the Code of C'rrr iral Procedure, 1973 (for short'(.r.P.C '), to set aside the judgment datec 1..08.2016 in Criminal Appeal N(,.611 c1'2015 passed by the learnecl Sper ial Judge for Trial of Offences urder S[-,,/Sl's (POA) Actcum-Vl Add tic nal Metropolitan Sessions .ludge Secunderabad, confirming the: i .dgment dated 25.06.2015 in C.(l.No.,l3 of 2014 on the file of learned VI Sipecial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶25

Hearrl. Pr: used the record.

¶26

The t:as,: rf the petitioner - de facto com1larnanl. in brief is that she had purcl-as:lcl a property in her name front the 2"d r:spondent - accused anrJ alc lraying consideration amount fo. the ;aid property, the property was re(l stered in her name. Later, the petitione:r cerme to know that there rryere lther claimants of the property, for urh ch reason, she approached tl-re 2nd respondent - accused qurlstionin,J the pending disputes with re:; rect to the property and with regard t()^,.)ther claimants. Since the petil.io rer was about to file a crimina cas€ ,rgainst the 2nd respondent - ar: :u;ed, the 2nd respondent admilted thr,, facts and his liability and exect terd a Memorandum of Declaration anrJ Jnclertaking on 06.04.2013 pror sing to return the amounts which ,ar:rre marked as

¶27

;E'

¶28

I I I

¶29

Ex.P14 and Ex.P15. Further, towards discharge of debt, the 2nd respondent - accused issued cheques and when the same were presented for clearance by the petitioner - de facto complainant, they were returned for the reason of insufficient funds'. The petitioner got issued legal notice to the 2nd respondent - accused on 0g.0g.2023 and the same was received by the 2nd respondent on 13.0g.2013, but he intentionally failed to pay the amounts. Therefore, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate vide C.c.No.43 of 2014 against the 2nd respondent - accused for the offence punishabre under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶30

After concluding trial and hearing arguments, since the learned Magistrate has found that legally enforceable debt or liability is not established by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent, he has acquitted the 2d respondent - accused. The petitioner preferred an appeal in criminal Appeal No.611 of 20i5 before the rearned sessions Judge. Having concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate, the learned sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal of the 2M respondent - accused. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present revision case.

¶31

Both the Courts below have found that there was no legally enforceable debt in so far as the claim of petitioner _ de facto complainant is concerned regarding the cheques issued by the 2nd

¶32

) )

¶33

I I

¶34

responden: rccused According to the pel,itior 3r, though the

¶35

documents i.r:., Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 were the urder:z,king for returning the amounts, th r ;retitioner - de facto complarnant der ierd the knowledge of the contents rf the documents. Since the dor:umert:; ar,l not^proved, both the C,rurts xrlow found that there is no legally enc-ceable debt and the initral bur:t: r was not discharged by the pelrtioner anc accordingly, acquitted tie 2"' r,-.spondent^- accused.

¶36

Learnec r:rrrnsel appearing for the petitic,ner l,rould submit that though no ci'rr suits were filed by the petitiorrer, sirrce the cheques contained the sir n,rture of the 2"d respondent - ar:cuserl, the same has to be consrdered ar cheque rssued towards legally erforce,able debt. In the said circumstarnr ::,, the findings of both the Ccurts lre:low have to be reversed and r:or viction has be recorded.

¶37

in cases r; acquittal, presumption of innoc,lnce is in lavour of the accused, Both 1're: Courts below have found thet the 2'd respondent - accused was r'ro llurlty on the basis of evidence adduc,:d and detailed discussion reqar li rg the transactions as clained by thr: petitioner. According to ti'r petitioner, the property was -ransf3r.ed by the 2nd respondent rn hr'lavour after paying sale consid,lratir:r anc registration was also don(1. In the said circumstances, when th,.: property was standing or tire rirme of the petitioner^- compl;rinant, -he question of there being anv liability that arises regarding the *rrr:l propefty i.e.,

¶38

?ilii

¶39

transfer in favour of^{the complainantdoes not arise.The petitioner-} complainant has^{not takenany stepsto proceedand file any cases before} the Civil Court to^{safeguardher rights aboutthe property that was} transferred in^{her favour.}

¶40

Considering^{the factsand circumstancesof the case, I do not find} any infirmity^{with the orders of both the courts below and the present} revision case^{is liable to be dismissed.}

¶41

9 Accordingly, the^{CrimlnalRevision Case is dismissed'}

¶42

Miscetlaneous^{Petitions, pendingif any,shall stand closed'}

¶43

Sd/.M.RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPUTYEEGISTRAR

,/TRUE COPY//

(* lC)

SECTION^OFFICER

To, 1 The Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under S Cs & S Ts (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge, Secunderabad'}

¶48

The Vll Special^{Magiskate'Hyderabad}

¶49

Two CCs^{to the Public Proseiutor,High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶50

+. One CC to^{SRt C. RAVICHANDRAN,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶51

One CC to^{SRI D MADHAVA RAO,Advocate [OPUCI}

¶52

Two CD^CoPies

karn

HIGH COUR]

DATED:12106t2.023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.3^l8 of²⁰¹⁸

,4 SlA rE OF
; (rrt t
/1.
t
,ir!' 6)
NTI
li: ., r $r- It
't,l:, Lu
I
.' ,
.\ ).
I E'it'd.1

¶60

THE CRlMlNr \l- REVISION CASE IS DIS^MISSED

Sunitha Bhansali v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunitha Bhansali v. 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

Yelakanti Mallaiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Somi Reddy Sampath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Vanamala Sathyanarayana Vs the State of Telangana

Smt Asha Latha and another Vs Sri. Meenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan and another

Meenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan Vs Smt. Asha Latha

Padam Chinna Bhumanna Vs The State of Telangna