Remanded

K. Viswanath v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jan 2025CRLA/113/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a private cheque-dishonour complaint for complainant's default in paying process fee. Holding the docket order cryptic and lacking details of proceedings over twelve years, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the complaint to the trial court for fresh disposal with adequate reasons.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal allowed; impugned docket order set aside and complaint remanded to trial court for fresh consideration.

K. Viswanath Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32sl I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 113 OF 2024

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., against the Docket Order dated 03.10.2023 passed in C-,C.No. 748 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of 1"'Class at Gajwel.

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Viswanath, S/o. Krishna, aged about 46 years. Occ: Business, R/o. H.No 10-5214, Main Road, Gajwel Village and Mandal, Medak District, T.S

¶10

...Appellant(Complainant)

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶13

Gandhamalla Thirupathi, S/o. Narayana, aged about 35 Years, Occ. Business and Agriculture, R/o Cheberthy village, Jagadevpur Mandal, Medak District.

¶14

... Respondents(Accused)

¶15

lA NO:3 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 29 days in filing the above Criminal Appeal against the Impugned Order.

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Togiti Nagender

¶18

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶19

CounseI for Respondent No.2 : None appeared

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER} CRIMINAL No.113 oF²⁰²⁴

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

The appellant^{is questioningtlle impugnedorder dismissing} the private^{complaint filed under Section138 of the Negotiable} Instruments^Act.

¶24

Heard Sri^{Togiti Nagender, learned counsel for the appellant} and learned^{Asst.Public Prosecutor for respondent No'1-State'}

¶25

.).) The impugned^{docket order dated03'10'2023reads;}

¶26

'Complainant^{absent- No representation' NBWpending} rrgcrinst the^{accused.Inspite of gtuenseueraladjournments'} the complainant failed^{to deposit process'Hence the caseis} dis mis^{se d} fo^{r default -'}

¶27

The learned^{counsel for the appellantsubmits that the} learned Magistrate^{has not cited the provision under whichthe} complaint^{was dismissed'Section2O4 of the Code of Criminal} Procedure, Ig73,^{contemplatesdismissal ofcomplaintwhen} process is not^{paid. However,when clauses-4 and 5 are read} together, the^{question of dismissing the privatecomplaint for not} paying Process^{does not arise'}

¶28

¶29

Learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of the Kerala High Court in Agodhga Printers a. State of Kerala qnd anotherr and submits that once the accused appears in a summons case and thereafter the accused does not appea-r, resulting in issuance of Non-bailable Warrants, the State has the duty to secure his presence ald produce him before the Court.

¶30

In the Judgrnent cited by the learned counsel, the Kerala High Court found that dismissal of the complaint was not on account of the absence of complainant but due to the failure of the complainant to pay the process fee under Section g2, 84 Cr.p.C. proceedings.

¶31

7 . In the present case, the case was Iiled in the year 201 l. Thereafter, the chief affidavit of PW. 1 was filed on O 1. I l.2O 13. The details as to what transpired regarding the proceedings that had taken place over a period of 12 years is not stated. It appears that the stage of this case is for cross-examination of pW. 1/ complainant and the accused and his counsel are absent.

¶32

Since the order is cryptic and does not give the details about what transpired after 01 . 1 1.2013, though the chief affidavit of

¶33

'2015^{sCC Onlin"Ker28036}

¶34

¶35

PW. I was Iiled, tiris Court deems it appropriate to remand back the case to the trial Court.

¶36

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is ordered. However, this order will not preclude the tria-l Court from dismissing the complaint by giving adequate reasons.

¶37

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEC N OFFICER

To,

The Principal^{Judicial Magistrateof l"tClassqt-GaiYvell.} i. f*o CCi^{io the PublicPiosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT] 3. Ohe CC to^{'Sri T6gitiNagender'Advocate [OPUC]}

¶43