Appeal against dismissal of a cheque dishonour complaint and acquittal of the accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C. after the complainant failed to appear on six occasions. The High Court found adequate reasons in the lower court order and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3251 ]
IN THE HIGH COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
IVIONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:1't96OF 2013
Appeal under Section 37 8(4) of Cr.P.Cagainst the order dated 09-'10-2013 made in C.C.No. 219 of 2013 on thefile of the Court of the Vlll Special Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, Hasthinapur, RangaReddy District.
Between:
T.Harikrishna, S/o. T.Anjaneyulu, Business,R/o. Plot No. 5, H.No. 1-4-180/'1, Road No. 4, Hari Nilayam, New Maruti Nagar,Kothapet,Hyderabad.
,..APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT
AND
...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. PRABHAKARRAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLICPROSECUTOR
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1196 0F 2013
JUDGMENT:
"Cornplair-rant is called abscnt. Accused is present Hor.l ever, passcd ovcr at 10:50 a.m At 3:40 p. nr Complainant is called absent. His counsel is also callcd absent. No represcntation. Accused is prr_,sent.
As seen li(lm the record (docket order), it is qrrite evident that thc complainant on receipt of records fi.om XI Mctrop<;liran Magistrate, Cyberabad appeared before this Court on I 2.O6.2O 13 and since then he clid not appear bef<rrc thc Court on any subsequent dates of hearings. ()l' collrse, his counscl filed petition U/St;c 256 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec 251 Cr.P.C. on l O.O'l.2O l3 and since then the case w:,rs subjected to six adjournmcnts for the evidence of trte complainan t Blrt the complainant remained abscnt on 24.O7 .20 \3 , 0rr.08.2013, 19.08.2O1s, o2.O9.2013, 18.09.2013 anrl on 25.09.2013 as such condition,r I
2
order was passed on 25.09.2013 for his appearance for today's date of hearing.
But today also the complainant called absent.
In view of the conditional order dated 25.O9.2O13, the complaint is dismissed and the accused is acquitted U/Sec 256 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishabte U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act."
though he t as erbsent for 6 times and then dismissed the complaint
5 Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed
Sd/- K . SAILESHI DEPUTY(R EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -.) SECTION OFFICER
To,
\q-
I I
HIGH COURT
DATED:0910912024
JUDGMENT
:tH E- S 14.€
o
.-+
7
U r 0E[ 2024
,ti I
<br>O;.; nr, r rl\ \ 'f
CRLA.No.1196 of 2013
DISMISSING THE CRIM!NAL APPEAL.
4rsdt
YY-
-<"\il<br>a\t'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Magistrate's dismissal of a Section 138 NI Act complaint and acquittal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. for repeated non-appearance of the complainant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T.Harikrishna
State of Andhra Pradesh
Itatiyala Vara Prasad
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
