Dismissed

Mohd Raheemuddin v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023CRLRC/32/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as not maintainable. The High Court held that penalty proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are part of the consumer dispute and appealable only to the State Commission, not directly to this Court via Criminal Revision.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty granted to avail remedies before the National Commission.

Mohd Raheemuddin Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAT.IGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 32OF 2018

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under section 397 & 401 of Cr.PC., aggrieved by the orders dated 05.12.2017^passed in F.A.No.88 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the District Consumer Forum ll Hyderabad by Telangana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad, Preffered against the order dated 15.02.2017 in EA.No.52l2011 in CC No.774 of 2009 on the file of District Consumer Forum-lli Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd Raheemuddin, S/o Md. Karimuddin aged about 64 years, Occ: Contractor (Developer), GHlrIC, H.No 8-3-167/30,Ground Floor, Enagadda, Hyderabad 500 018

¶10

PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . State of Telangana, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

¶13

D.Krishna Murthy Raju, S/o D Venkata Raju, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Advocate, H NO 2-3-167130, Flat No 201 Erragadda, Hyderabad-500018

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT

¶15

|.A.NO.1 0F 2018

¶16

Petition under Sectron 482 CrPC praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Ordis in E.a.No.5212011 on the file oF the District Forum-lll, Hyderabad.

¶17

NO.2 F 2018

¶18

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto enlarge the Petitioner on barl by suspending the sentence^passed by the^District Forum ll, Hyderabad as confirmed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissron, Hyderabad in F.A.No.88/201^7.

¶19

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G VASANTHA^RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent^{no.1: PUBLICPROSECUTOR} Counsel for the Respondent^{no.2: None Appeared} The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI E .320F I ORDER:

¶23

'I'his (lriminaI Itcvisron ( -asc lras bccn filed undcr Sections

¶24

397 and.401 of^(-odc of^(-riminal l)roccdure, 1973 ([or short "Cr.P.C.") challengrng rhe ordcr datcd 05.12.2017 in Ir.A.No.88 of 2077 on the file of rhc^-l clangana Statc Consumer Disputes Redrcssal Commtssion, [ [vdcrabad

¶25

2, I Icarcl N{r.^{(i.'rts:tnrha} l{rt utlu, lcarncd counscl^[<lr tht: fcvlst()n peuu()ncr

¶26

'l'hc rclcvarrr f:rcts irr bricl- urc that respondcnt No.2 had filcd C.C.t'r-o.774⁽⁾ⁱ 2(lo() orr rhc^t-tlc oi l)istrict Consttmer^Forttm, Llyderabad ancl it t nrlc,-l irr Iris irtr'otrr.^{'I-hc revision petitioncr} challenging thut or.lt'r plctctrctl^{lrrst appcalvide F.A.No.261 of} 2011 which s'rts Prrtlr .tlli,uc.l. Ilttrc^{ttpon a rcvision} Pcririon and rcvieu applit.rtti,^{)rr \ ( r'( lllr'el lrt li,r'cthc Nariorral (-ommission} xnd thc t-csttlt:tttt^,,rrlt l rltlillrl('(l^{finelirv.'l'hcrcaFrer,thc} cot]rplainanr cttrrlcttrlirlg^tlt.rt tht^{:'( \ l:i rl} Pt^{ririoncrhereinfailccl}

¶27

to cornplv thc :rlrovc^{.r,-lcr tllctl t rcctttiottaplllicationun<lct'} "

¶28

N I ll.J crlr. I .' :li) lll

¶29

Scction 27 of rhe Act, 198(r rlt:r...rnaftcr.'1l.rc,\ct,') bcForc thr: District []orum.^'l'he l)istric.r: I;orurn r.idc i.,rrlcr darcd 21 .()g.2017 convicted the revision peutioncr. arrJ scntcncr:d li.nr [or itrprisonnrent of one month and line of I(r,.2,00()/,, in defarrlr, sirnplc irnotisonntent fol Nvo rn(),rtlls.^-lhat r.,rdcr ,,,,,:rl; c:haUeng,t:tl l.rclore thc Statc (}rmrnissi.n *i.lc l;. .N..(,..1 I .i lry 1.1. h.wc'cr the ilrder oI the District lr.rum r,,.es ,-.rr tlrrr,.:ccl. (.r,nscqygn1l1,, thc re'ision pet-iti.ner rvas rcrrranrltrd t, jrrdrcr:rl culit()r.r' trnijcr thc rrtder dated^{'15.()2.2Afi.} That c,rclcr was c()nlcsrcd iir Ir.r.No.Bg ol 2017 bcfr-,1s ths State C.ommisslon an,.l , rr.r irs tlrsn-rissal r,icic irrpugrrcd ot:der darcd 15.12.2011 , Prch.rrctl ilri Pr151 r)r r.ci isi():.r.

¶30

l. DLrring hcaring, thc aspcct ()i lilunl:rlnabilitr ot- rc.;tsirirt t:esc bc[<rrc this Court has bccrr r:rrs,.'tl

¶31

In this regard, the lear-ncd corrnscl frrr. rirr-. rcr rsrt,rr pcuriorrer *,ould subrnit that Section 27 ol the .\cr :orrLt,nrnl:rrcs 1rqr1xl6, x11il tlrc District llo^rm bt cxcrcisr.r irs jLrrr.tlrr.rr,,. .s .Iutlir.r:rl l\lagistrate of liirst class had Passt'rl rhc .rtlc,r'. rsair rsr ri-hich a. ,Ppcal is prcscribcd undcr S.cri.. .l--,' ,i ,,i' rlr.. \cr. ;rs slrclr rlrc

NTR,J crlrc 12 2018

I ! I

--f

appeal has bcen prclerrcd bc[<rrc rhc Sratc Commission However, as there is no provision lor further avenue, filing the revision case before the FIigh (.ourr is rhc only way out, especially as the District Forum had cxcrciscd its jurisdicrion as J udicial Magistrate. Furthcr, pleaded that thc pcnalry proceedings canoor be considered as an ordcr in consumer dispute. Therefore, the revision case bcft)rc thc Fligh^(-ourr is rnaintainablc.

¶38

'fhc submissions oi thc luirlncd counscl arc givcn due consideradon

¶39

7 On a careful pcrr-rsll ()i S(,cu()n l7 oF the Act, it is explicit that when a cornplaint is irsuinsr 1r pcrs()rr rvho omits to comply any order o[ the Disrricr [:orLrrrr, Srlrc or National^(iommission, such a pcrson f tl.dcr sh:rll lrc l)Luu:l).rl)lc^'',r'irh irnprisonment or fine or with both.^'l hLr:. rr r\ u\ r(lcnt rllir rvhcncvcr an order passed in a consumcr tlisptrrt rc Il l:lllt s uncornplicd, thc penalty proceedings can bc inrrr;rrcrl. [c:rnirrg rhcrcb1,, penalry procecdings arc conrinrrarron ,,i rhc consumer dispute [or: executlon I hus, thc plcetL,r.g ol- rhc rcr ision pcurioner that

¶40

N fR..j .r lrc ll 20l8

¶41

¶42

pcn:rlti procccdings havc to bc considclccl distincll ()t 1t cann()l be consicicrcd the consumcr disputc is rror rcasonal-rlc. I.,lerelv, bccause thc consumer forum is vesrcc] u-ith p()\r(:is of e Juclicial Magistrate <>[ the Firsr Class in implemcnung tl-rc yrenalq,, thc samc cann()t be stretched to discern tlrar drc pcnalrv procccdinl;:r ar.c iutlcpcndent as such the procc'durc c<>nrcmJrlatc<I f<rt rc,;isii,n rrnclcr^(-r.l).(". has to be applied.

¶43

ti Bc thar as it mav, Scction 2-l(t) of thr ,\cr \ hrch ()pcr:rrcs ap,,airrst. tlrc order under Seccion 27 ttf thc ,\cr is prcscribinq lrrcrarchv o[ the Forums to u,hich the appcal can bc l)rcscrltcd llus nrovision explicates that the order matle br rhc. [)rsrrici [;orr.rm lics to Statc Commission and thc ordcr tnatL lrv rlrc Stirtc i -orntntssion t() the National Comrnission and thc or,.lcr rrrr,lr. br

¶44

thc \atronal^(.ommissr<tn to thc Suprcmc^(_rrtrr-t

¶45

9 l har apart, Section 2'l of tbe .\ct prr;r iclcs rtrc lLrrisrlicrion

¶46

of rhc l.'r.-au<>nal Commissiol, as hercunder,

¶47

-rl. Jrrlisthction^{oIthc Nauonal} Commtssi,,n. S,.rbrcr.r r,, rlrt <,rhcr pror-isions of tlus Act, thc National (lomnrrssr<,n ,lr,rll Iter e turtsclicrir,n-

¶48

(a] to crtrcrtainQ^{conrpl:rinrsu'hcre} rhe^value of rhc e,rocls o,^{\cr\r('(</sup> lll(l c()rllDctlsati()n, ilanr', claimed cxcccds IIt,rpcc. o11q 11, rp1 i. 11111}

N TR.J crlrc l2 2018

(i!) appeals against the orders oI anv Srarc^{(-ommission;and} @)^{to call for the recordsand pass appropriateorders in any} consumer dispute which is pendrng before or^{has beendecidedby} any State Commission where it aPPears to the^National Commission that such State C<>mmission^{has exerciscda} jurisdrcuon not vested in it by larv, or has farled to cxercise a jurisdrctron so vested, or has acred in the exercise of its iurisdicnon illegally or wirlr material irregularrD.

¶53

Thus the clause @) of Section 21 oF rhc Act, sripulates^that the National Commission is having^{jtrrisdictiont() cxll for records} from the State Commission and t() sct ,tstclc^xnY Pcn'crse^or improper order, which is analogous to thc^rcvisi()nal iurisdiction That being the statutory p()sition, thc appropriatc^{f()rum to} challenge the impropriery o[ thc ordcr Passec!^{bY rhe State} Commission under Section 27(A) ol thc^{:\ct, rvotrld be thc} National Commission

¶54

1 1. Furthermore, it is se tdcd position rher^{thcre visional} jurisdiction cannot be claimcd zts 1 rnrttcr oi richt, unless specifically provided under thc^{stlttLrtc. \'hcn the ,\ctis} specitying the iurisdicrion of^{rcvisit,trt() thcNational} Commission, the revision pctitl()ncr^{sirotrlcl hevc n'ailedthe} rcmedy corrcspondinglr'. In ltl,-ltttort.^{:t: rlrc \ctdocsnot} designate the jurisdiction of thc lligh^{(-oLrrr rrr 1rr\ rnllllncr,thus}

¶55

¶56

\III.I crlrc -ll 20llt

¶57

c(:rclslng thc revisional jirrisdicuon againsr rhc ortlcr passecl bv thc Stere Commission, wouici be inappositc.

¶58

) \r this srauc, lt,arriccl f<ir tl-rc rcvtsl()rr pctiti()llcr 1trl1'ccl IoL qr':r:rung hbcrtl, ro auail his rcmcdres bclrrrc rhc rrr.-nrionaJ (. r, ni rr ris s io n.

¶59

F.r. rhe rczrsons afore-stated, this Crirninal llc,.,isi.. (.asr: is clisrrrisse'cl as n.t maintainable, however with liber*, t. rhc rcr.rsi.n p( ltrorrc! ,Ls JrravcJ ftrr.

¶60

:; .r sctlucl, miscclJancrius petidons, ltcndinu il- anr. .hall s ia;,il clr,scd

¶61

Sd/. K.SAILESHI DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Hyderabad.

¶67

District Consumer Forum-lll, Hyderabad.

¶68

¶69

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶70

One CC to SRl. G VASANTHA RAYUDU, Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110912023

ORDER CRLRC.No.32 ot 2018

¶76

1 HE ST4 re:
o
q
oo 2 3 JA\ 202f (.)
)r
-!'
* Dp 9!1'.i'-

¶77

DISM!SS!NG THE CRL.RC

¶78

AS NOT MAINTAINABLE

¶79

I^cce1"6 Y( d("t

Mohd Raheemuddin v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Raheemuddin v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Khadeer Mirza Baig Vs Md. Nazimunnisa

Srikanth Kumar Jilla Vs The State of Telangana

Rajender Yadav Vs Smt Ayesha Fathima

K.Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana

Lakamana Maheswari Vs The State of Telangana

Bandela David Sandeep Vs Sheena Mrinalini