Dismissed

M/s Sri Vidya Enterprises v. M/s Kemicides Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd.. And Another

Telangana HC6 Aug 2024CRLP/1991/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The Court held that the dispute required a full-fledged trial and is inappropriate for judicial intervention at this stage. Appearance to the trial court was dispensed with.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; appearance to the trial court dispensed with.

M/s Sri Vidya Enterprises Vs M/s Kemicides Crop… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32ss ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY^{OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.^VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1991 OF²⁰²⁰

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s Sri Vidya Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietor Migada^{Srinivas S/o} Narayana, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.^{11l33. Main Road,} Garla Village and Mandal, Khammam District

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s Kemicides Crop Protection Pvt Ltd.. And Another, Rep. by^{its Accounts} Officer, Soma Vijay Kumar S/o Soma Mallaiah, aged about 35^years, Occ, Employee, D.No.4-10-99, Plot No. 16, Block No.9. Autonagar, Hyderabad^- 70.

¶13

....oMPLA'NANT

¶14

The State of Telangana, rep. by Through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of relangana at Hyderabad

¶15

...RES'.NDENTS

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^tn the^{crrcumslances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitton. the^{Hrgh Court may} be pleased to quash the complaint in C.C. No. 33 OF 2020^{on the file of Special} tvlagistrate, Court No - ll, Hasthinapuram, L B Nagar, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, lhe High Court^may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of^petitioners/ accused in C.C. No.33 OF 2020 on the file of Special^{Magistrate.Court No-ll,} Hasthinapuram, L B Nagar, Ranga Reddy District,^{pendingdisposal} of^main Criminal Petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the fv'lemorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^argumentsof Sri HYDER ALI REPRESENTING SRI SREENIVASA^RAOVELIVELA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms S.Madhavi, the Assistant Public^{Prosecutor (TG)on} behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri Shashidhar^{represenling Sri Anantha} Chary Kurella ,Advocate for the Respondent^No.1 The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.1991 OF 2O2O

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to 1n quash the complaint against the petitioner/Accused C.C.No.33 of 2O2O on the lile of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, "the trial Court").

¶23

Heard Mr. Hyder Ali, learned counsel representing petitioner; Mr. Sashidhar, learned Counsel representing Mr. Anantha Chary Kurella, learned counsel for respondent No. I and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2-State. Perused the record.

¶24

The averments of the case are that the complainant company is manufacturer and supplier of seeds and the accused approached the complainant in the year 2077 -78 and started placing orders for purchasing different seeds and pesticides from time to time. The complainant company supplied best quality of pesticides _!q !!r e accused

¶25

¶26

¶27

EW'J CrLP-No.1991^{of 2O2O}

¶28

and the accused^{had to pay an amount of} Rs.3,53,758=30^{ps and agreed to pay interest @ 24o/o per} annum and^{issued a} post dated cheque^bearing No.162011, dated^{26.O7.2019for anamountof} Rs.2,99,494 l- drawn^{on State Bank of Hyderabad'Station} Road, Garla,^{KhammamDistrict, drawn infavourof} complainant on^{O 1.04.2018' On presentation'the said} cheque was^{returned with an endorsement "Chequenot} vatid". Then the complainant^{got issued a legal notice on} 20.08.2019 calling^{upon the accused to pay the cheque} amount within^{the stipulated time' But the accused failed} to pay the^{cheque amount due' Hence, the complainant} filed a complaint^{against the accused for the offence} punishable under^{Section138 of theNegotiable} Instruments^{Act (for short, "the NI Act")' Aggrieved by the} same, the^{present CriminalPetition is filed seeking to} quash complaint^{againstthepetitioner/ Accused in} C.C.No.33^{of 2O2O pendingbefore the trial Court'}

¶29

Learned^{counselfor thepetitioner/Accused} contendedthattheaccountmaintainedbythecomplainant

¶30

¶31

EW,J Crl.P.No. 1991 of 2O2O

I I

) )

/ //

is not conclusive proof and there are no vouchers supporting that the accused obtained material on credit basis. He lurther contended that no statutory notice AS required under law is served to the petitioner; as such complaint is not maintainable and the subject cheque was issued on 01.04.2018 and the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence, he seeks to allow the Criminai petition.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the same and contended that unless and until a full-fledged trial is being conducted, the real truth cannot be elicited. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶37

Having regard to the submissions made by all the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, as the matter is pending for quite a 1ong time, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires adjudication at length and the trial Court, after conducting a full-fledged trial and upon examining the oral and documentary evidence available on record, would pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. Therefore,

I I

EVV.J \ CiLP.No.l991 oj 2O2O

¶43

this Court is not inclined to entertain the Crimina-l Petition at this stage.

¶44

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, is dispensed with during the course of the impugned proceedings on all occasions, except as and when required by the trial Court.

¶45

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTAN REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The ll lVletropolitan^Magistrate ,Ranga^{Reddyat L.B.Nagar.}

¶51

The Station House^{Officer,L.B.Nagar PoliceStation ,Ranga Reddy District}

¶52

One CC to SRI SREENIVASA^{RAO VELIVELA, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶53

4 One CC to SRI ANANTHA^{CHARY KURELLA,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶54

5 Two CCs to Public^{Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad IOUT]

¶55

1. Two CD Copies

AR/DL

I I

: I I ! I i I I t I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/08/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.1991 of 2O2O

2..= -.\
-rtt' f4T.e
("
{
[ 0 ]it\i ?ml
!/t

¶65

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶66

o4^
%,.6(.'q

M/s Sri Vidya Enterprises v. M/s Kemicides Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd.. And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sri Vidya Enterprises v. M/s Kemicides Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd.. And Another

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

M/s. Gautam Trading Co., Vs M/s. Sri Laxmi Srinivasa Traders

Ram Gopal Varma Vs State of Telangana and another

Dr. Ajaaz Habib Qureshi Vs The State of Telangana

Vidyasagar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Lanka venkata Laxmi Narayana Vs The state of Telangana

T. Ravi Kumar or Ravi Thalia Vs The State of Telangana