Dismissed

Sri. T. Praveen Kumar v. Smt.G. Sunitha

Telangana HC4 Oct 2024CRLP/2349/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to summon suit documents. The court held that since the petitioner failed to comply with an order to renew a required application and proceedings in the lower courts remain stalled, the petition cannot be allowed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is dismissed with no costs awarded. Miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Sri. T. Praveen Kumar Vs Smt.G. Sunitha — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2349 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri. T. Praveen Kumar, S/o. T. Venkataiah, aged 36^years, Occ- Business, Flat No. 101 , Varshnavi Nest, Street No. 3, Kakatiya Nagar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad 500 007

¶9

.,,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Smt.G. Sunitha, Wo. Sri K. Rajeshwar Rao, Aged major, Occ Business, Also Proprietrix of M/s. Nithya Procons H.No. 12-'13-645 (old), 12-13-645/C^(First Floor), Besides Venkat Lakshmi Nilayam, Lane Besides Telangana Grameena Bank Street No.14, Nagarjuna Nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad^- 500 017

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the^present Criminal Petition by setting aside and Quashing the impugned orders dated 25-03-2019 in Crl.M.P.No.751 ot 2019 in C.C.Nl. 14935 of 2022 on the file of the lX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad and consequently to call for/summon the suit documents filed by the Petitioner^from the office of the Court of the XXV^Addl. Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed in O.S.No.312 ot 2017.

¶15

(Prayer amended as per Court Order dt. 131812024 vide lA.No. 0212024, in Crt.P.No. 234912019)

¶16

r.A. NO: 1 0F 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 4g2 ol Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the lnterim orders dated 07 tO6tZO24 passed in l.A.No. .t of 20 19 in crl P . 2349 ot 2oi9 untir further orders and pending disposar of the Criminal Petition.

¶18

r.A. NO: I OF 2019

¶19

Petition under section 4g2 0t cr.p-c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to stay ail further proceedings incruding Triar in c.c.Nr. 14935 of 2022 0n the fire of the rX Metroporitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad pending disposal of the Criminat petition

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri someshwar Rao, Advocate for the petitioner, sri Ganesh, Assistant pubric prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 1.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶23

CRIMTNAL PETITION No.2349 OF 2019

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 25.o3.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.751 of 2OI9 in C.C.NI.No.14935 of 2022 on the file of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court")

¶26

Heard Mr.Someshu,ar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 State

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainart filed a case against the respondent No.l/accused before X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad vide C.C.No.178 of 2Ol7 alle$ng that the respondent No.l/accused had issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.76,0O,0OO l- ,t d Rs.74,O0,OOO l- vide Cheque bearing Nos. 164995 and 164996, dated 15.01.2017 respectively towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. The subject matter of the case is at the stage of trial and the petitioner has to lead the evidence. The petitioner/complainant undertook to file the originals of the documents relied upon by him at the time of trial.

¶28

)

¶29

¶30

However, the documents relied upon by hirn and sought to be marked here are hled by him in a civil suit vide O.S.No.312 of 2017 on the IiIe of learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the 1"t respondent herein. The original dobuments could not be marked in O.S.No.3 12 of 2Ol7 and the sarne could not be taken back so as to frle and mark in the said case. Unless the case documents, as sought by the petitioner are summoned or ca,lled from the office of the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.312 of 2017, the petitioner/ complainant cannot mark the sarne. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed^{(Cr.M.P.No.7S1} of 2O 19 in C.C.No.178 of 2Ol7 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for/summon the suit documents from the Court of learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. However, the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Hence, this petition.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject matter of this petition i.e., C.C.No.178 of 2Ol7 on the file of learned X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad has been transferred to the file of the lea.rned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad and re-numbered as C.C.NI.No.14935 ol 2022 and the same is amended rride orders of

¶32

I )

¶33

this Court dated 13.08.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court committed a material illegality and irregularity in dismissing the Cr1.M.P.No.751 of 2019 in C.C.NI.No.14935 of 2022 dated 25.03.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is his case before the trial Court to call for the documents. This Court for proper reference while granting stay had called for the records on 03.06.2019 on the file of learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, but so far the records have not e,i^{placedbeforethis Court.However,keeping} in^view of the^pending proceedings before this Court as weli as learned trial Court in O.C.No.312 of 2Ol7 this Court on 7O.O1.2020 has extended the stay.

¶34

karned trial Court while dismissing the application observed that the plaintiff is at liberty to renew the petition subsequent to complying with the orders of Civil Court in I.A.No.592 of 2Ol7 in O.S.No.312 of 2Ol7 and granted liberty that by furnishing specilic description and details the said documents to be called for from the said civil suit. Nothing presented the petitioner from complying with the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.592 of 2017 in O.S.No.312 of 2017.

I i

Without complying the said order,^{the petitioner approachedthis} Court. In such circumstances the^present application^{cannot be} allowed. Since the matter is^{pendingfor long time and the} proceedings before the trial Court^{are stalled, I am not inclined to} allow this petition. Accordingly,^{this Criminal Petitionis failed} and is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

In the result, the Crimina,l^{Petition is dismissed. No costs.}

¶40

Miscellaneor-ts Petitions,^{pendingif any, shall stand closed.}

¶41

, I

¶42

Sd/. V. KAVITHA AS T NT REGISTRAR

¶43

//TRUE^COPY/'

¶44

CTION OFFICER

¶45

To, 1 The lX^{Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad at ManoranianComplex'} Hvderabad 2 a Tl,:#"".tSlL."B';lilJtn,:g'o",3lY"r?#t"if^{?il?,iS''"'"orreranganaat} Hvderabad [OUT] 4 ij'.:,"b C i;^dn i^{fra v i K} l Tli Al X"ilt""t"?[ufip u c r 5- One^{CCto Sri S. Somesh} Ct. Two CD^CoPies VH/gh tA-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0411012024

ORDER

,1,a.
-tt'
o 3 0 jA, z[25 o
*
t
PAT

¶50

CRLP.No.2349 of 2019

¶51

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION (A-

¶52

e1 7q)>

Sri. T. Praveen Kumar v. Smt.G. Sunitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. T. Praveen Kumar v. Smt.G. Sunitha

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

Sri.Ediga Ramulu Goud and another Vs The State of T.S and another

Avadesh Bihari Sharma Vs The State of Telangana

M/S Esperanza Corporate (P) Ltd., and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Dr.P.Namratha ,Neeraja Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Mr B Srinivas Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Ravinder Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another