Telangana High Court
Dr. Manjusha S. Manneri Manneri ... vs State Of Telangana And Another on 27 April, 2023
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.133 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal application, under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C, is
filed by the appellant/complainant, challenging the docket order
dated 02.12.2022, passed in C.C.NI.No.1575 of 2021 by the II
Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally whereby, the
complaint filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C against the respondent No.2/accused for the offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was dismissed
for default.
2. Heard Sri Peddakvoa papaiah, learned counsel
representing Sri Charan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the
appellant/complainant, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/accused perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would
submit that initially, the subject complaint was filed before the
Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate at Kukatpally and the case was numbered as
C.C.No.2726 of 2018. During COVID-19 pandemic, the subject
case was transferred to the Court of VIII Special Magistrate and
2 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRl.A.No.133 of 2023
was re-numbered as C.C.No.1575 of 2021 and later, as the Special
Courts were abolished, the subject case was again transferred to
the Court of XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally,
which was kept pending for a while. However, since the XII
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally had no jurisdiction
to deal with the case, it was again transferred to X Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally. Under these circumstances,
issuance of notice to the appellant/complainant is mandatory in
the event of transfer of the case from one Court to another. The
Court below dismissed the case for default though the
appellant/complainant is regularly pursuing the proceedings
through his junior counsel. Only due to the frequent transfer of the
subject case from one Court to another, the junior counsel missed
the track of the case. The Court below is not justified in dismissing
the complaint for default and ought to have given notice to the
appellant/complainant, as she has no knowledge about the
pendency of the proceedings before the Court which dismissed the
subject complaint for default. The absence of the
appellant/complainant when the case was called before the Court
below is neither willful nor wanton, but for the reasons beyond her
control. Even the counsel for the appellant/complainant was
suffering from ill-health. Despite due diligence in pursuing the
3 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRl.A.No.133 of 2023
subject case by the junior counsel, in view of the frequent transfer
of the subject case from one Court to another, the subject case
came to be dismissed for default and ultimately prayed to set aside
the impugned docket order dated 2.12.2022 and allow the appeal
as prayed for.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/accused would submit that though the appellant/complainant
had filed the subject complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, she
failed to pursue the matter diligently. The Court below, while
dismissing the subject complaint for default, categorically observed
that in spite of several adjournments, the complainant was absent
and there was no representation on her behalf. Since there were
laches on the part of the appellant/complainant in diligently
pursuing the matter, the Court below is justified in dismissing the
subject complaint for default. The impugned docket order dated
2.12.2022 brooks no interference and ultimately prayed to dismiss
the appeal.
5. The impugned docket order, dated 02.12.2022, reads
as follows:
"Complainant absent. Accused present. Inspite
of several adjournments complainant absent
and no representation on behalf of complainant,
4 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRl.A.No.133 of 2023
and on conditional order to file the chief
evidence by complainant, complainant absent,
chief not filed and no representation on behalf
of complainant. Hence, case is Dismissed for
Default."
6. The appellant/complainant contends that though the
subject case was being pursued diligently by a junior counsel, in
view of frequent transfer of the subject case from one Court to
another, he missed the track of the case and ultimately the
impugned order dismissing the subject case for default came to be
passed. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant/complainant that the case was frequently transferred
from one Court to other is not disputed by the other side.
Furthermore, there is medical record to substantiate that the
counsel for the appellant/complainant was suffering from ill-health.
Furthermore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent
No.2/accused, if the present appeal is allowed, in view of the fact
that the said complaint is filed under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
7. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of
the appellant/complainant and in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that the
appellant/complainant can be afforded one more opportunity to
5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRl.A.No.133 of 2023
pursue the matter diligently, on payment of costs, which course, in
the considered opinion of this Court, would sub-serve the ends of
justice.
8. Accordingly, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.1000/-
(One Thousand Rupees only) by the appellant/complainant to the
respondent No.2/accused within two(2) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Criminal Appeal stands
allowed, and the impugned docket order, dated 02.12.2022 passed
in C.C.NI.No.1575 of 2021 by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-
cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at
Kukatpally stands set aside and the subject C.C.NI.No.1575 of
2020 stands restored to the file of the Court below. On such
restoration of the subject CC.NI.No.1575 of 2021, the Court below
shall endeavor to dispose of the same within a period of three(3)
months thereafter. It is made clear that if the petitioner/appellant
fails to pay the amount as indicated above, the impugned docket
order dated 02.12.2022 stands as it is. Both the parties as well as
their respective counsel shall cooperate with the Court below for
disposal of the subject CC.NI.No.1575 of 2021 within the time
stipulated.
6 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRl.A.No.133 of 2023
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal
Revision Case shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
27.04.2023
dgr
7 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
CRl.A.No.133 of 2023
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Crl.A. No.133 of 2023
Date:27.04.2023
dgr
