V. Venkataiah vs Kotta Ravinder And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1317 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1317 Tel
Judgement Date : 17 March, 2023

Telangana High Court

V. Venkataiah vs Kotta Ravinder And Another on 17 March, 2023

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.262 of 2022

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., is

filed by the appellant/complainant, challenging the docket order,

dated 04.05.2022, passed in C.C.No.116 of 2021 by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District,

whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent No.1/accused for

the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, was dismissed for default.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri S.Vijaya Prashanth, learned

counsel for the appellant/complainant and perused the record.

3. On 20.01.2023, this Court ordered notice on respondent

No.1/accused. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant

filed a memo in USR No.55561 of 2022 along with the postal

track record which reveals that notice is served on respondent

No.1/accused. In spite of the same, there is no representation

on his behalf.

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would

contend that the Court below erred in dismissing the complaint

for default. The appellant/complainant was present in the

morning and he went to pickup his daughter from the

educational institution, who went for collection of Hall Ticket for

Board Examinations. The appellant/complainant was present

before the Court below on every date of hearing of the subject

C.C. The appellant/complainant entrusted the matter to the

other counsel to attend the case, but due to his daughter's

marriage, said counsel was held up and could not attend the

case. Absence of the appellant/complainant on the date of

passing of the impugned order is neither intentional nor

deliberate. The appellant/complainant deposited the process for

issuing summons. Without there being any justifiable reason,

the Court below dismissed the complaint for default, which is

erroneous. Since the subject complaint is filed under Sections

138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, if the impugned

docket order is not set aside, irreparable injury would ensue to

the appellant/complainant and ultimately prayed to set aside the

impugned docket order, dated 04.05.2022, and allow the appeal

as prayed for.

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi

5. The impugned docket order, dated 19.10.2022, reads as

follows:

"Complainant called absent. Counsel for the complainant also called absent. No representation. Process for issuance of NBW against the accused not paid. The matter was passed over and again called at about 4:50pm still there is no representation. Neither the complainant nor his counsel is present. It appears the complainant is not interested and casually dragging on the case without even taking the basic steps. Hence the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed for default."

6. The appellant/complainant contends that on the date of

passing of the impugned order dismissing the complaint for

default, he was present before the Court in the morning and

later, he went to pick up his daughter from educational

institution who went for collecting Hall Ticket for Board

examination. It is also his case that he was present before the

Court on every date of hearing, except on the day when the

complaint was dismissed for default. It is also averred by the

appellant/complainant that his counsel also could not attend the

Court in view of his daughter's marriage. However, no prejudice

would be caused to the respondent No.1/accused, if the present

appeal is allowed, in view of the fact that the subject complaint Justice Juvvadi Sridevi