Putta Shobhan vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 872 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.582 OF 2022

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. is filed by

the appellant/complainant, challenging the docket order, dated

10.08.2022, passed in C.C.No.407 of 2017 by the Additional Junior

Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special (Mobile)

Court at Kamareddy, whereby, the complaint of the

appellant/complainant was dismissed by the Court below under

Section 256 of Cr.P.C.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the

appellant/complainant and perused the record. Learned counsel for

the appellant/complainant has filed a memo in USR No.16306 of

2023 along with the postal cover stating that the notice sent to

Respondent No.2/accused returned with the postal endorsement

"party refused". A perusal of the returned postal cover makes it

clear that there is an endorsement on the said cover as "party

refused". Under these circumstances, the notice is deemed to be

served on the Respondent No.2/accused. The Respondent

No.2/accused did not enter appearance.

JS, J Crl.A.No.582 of 2022

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit

that the appellant/complainant has filed complaint against the

Respondent No.2/accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act vide

C.C.No.407 of 2017. The appellant/complainant was ready with

the Chief Affidavit to adduce his evidence on 10.08.2022, but due

to heavy traffic jam and congestion, the appellant/complainant and

his counsel could not reach the Court during the call work. The

Court below dismissed the complaint under Section 256 of Cr.P.C.

during the call work itself holding that 33 adjournments were

already granted to the complainant, but complainant did not

appear before the Court and failed to affirm his chief affidavit and

mark any documents on his behalf. The rights of the

appellant/complainant cannot be axed at the threshold, which may

result in irreparable loss to the appellant/complainant and

ultimately requested to grant one more opportunity to the

appellant/complainant to putforth his case before the Court below.

4. The absence of the appellant/complainant before the Court

below on the date of passing of the impugned docket order, dated

10.08.2022 appears to be non-deliberate. The case of the

appellant/complainant is that he was ready with the Chief Affidavit

to adduce his evidence on 10.08.2022, due to heavy traffic jam

and congestion, the appellant/complainant and his counsel could JS, J Crl.A.No.582 of 2022

not reach the Court during the call work. Having regard to the

facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it

appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the

appellant/complainant to pursue the matter on payment of costs.

Further, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent

No.2/accused, if the impugned order is set aside directing the

Court below to dispose of the matter after affording opportunity to

both the sides.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the

impugned docket order, dated 10.08.2022 passed in C.C.No.407 of

2017 by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate

of First Class Special (Mobile) Court at Kamareddy, stands set

aside. Consequently, the subject C.C.No.407 of 2017 stands

restored to its file on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the District

Legal Services Authority, Kamareddy, within two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal

Appeal shall stand closed.

___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J 21st February, 2023 Ksk