P. Krishnan vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1944 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.8000 OF 2023

O R D E R:

The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused

to set aside the order dated 18.08.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1676 of 2023

in C.C.NI.No.3231 of 2022 passed by the VI Metropolitan

Magistrate at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'), against the

petitioner alleging that the petitioner, who is doing business in the

name and style of Ms.Pooja Distributors, has issued cheques to

respondent No.2 and the said cheques were returned with an

endorsement 'insufficient funds'; that respondent No.2

misrepresented the place of offence as Banjara Hills and filed the

complaint before the VI Additional Magistrate, Manoranjan

Complex at Hyderabad; that the Court below lacks jurisdiction to

try the case as bank of respondent No.2 is located at Lakdikapool

GAC, J Crlp_8000_2023

Branch, which comes within the limits of Saifabad Police Station

and not in the limits of Banjara Hills Police Station; that having

discovered the error of jurisdiction, a petition under Section 201

read with Section 258 of Cr.P.C. was filed to drop the ongoing

proceedings on the ground that the Court below lacks jurisdiction

and that the Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance of the

complaint, dated 17.08.2023. Therefore, prayed to set aside the

order, dated 18.08.2023.

4. On perusal of record, it is evident that C.C.NI.No.3231 of

2022 is filed basing on the complaint filed by respondent No.2

under Sections 138 and 142 of NI Act. The contents of the

complaint disclose that the petitioner is doing pharmaceutical

business in the name and style of Ms.Pooja Distributors and

respondent No.2 is carrying business in sale and supply of life

saving drugs and in the course of business, the petitioner has

purchased life saving drugs from respondent No.2 on credit basis.

On repeated demands by respondent No.2, the petitioner issued

two cheques dated 19.12.2017 towards the said outstanding

amount of Rs.1,30,09,370/- and when the said chques were

presented for encashment, they were dishonored on 20.12.2017.

Further, the petitioner promised to discharge the entire

outstanding amount of Rs.1,30,09,370/- together with

GAC, J Crlp_8000_2023

Rs.5,20,000/- (4% on outstanding amounts) and executed a deed

of declaration to that effect on 18.08.2017. Towards the discharge

of the said promised outstanding amount of Rs.1,30,09,370/-, the

petitioner has issued two cheques bearing No.001521 dated

13.11.2017 for Rs.43,40,056/- and cheque bearing No.001520,

dated 13.11.2017 for Rs.86,69,314/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank

Ltd., Hyderabad, Malkajgiri Branch. When respondent No.2

presented the said cheques for clearance in HDFC Bank, Banjara

Hills Branch, the Cheques were returned with an endorsement

"Insufficient Funds". Though it the contention of learned counsel

for the petitioner that the bank of respondent No.2 is located at

Lakdikapool Branch, which comes within the limits of Saifabad

Police Station, the complaint disclose that the bank of respondent

No.2 is in the limits of Banjara Hills Police Station.

5. A perusal of the impugned docket order dated 18.08.2023

discloses that the Court below while adjourning the matter to

22.08.2023 for arguments observed that respondent No.2 was

present; the petitioner was absent; counter was filed in Crl.M.P.,

since the issues raised in the discharge petition is with regard to

jurisdictional error, it would be decided in main judgments and

that to avoid further delay, the trial Court has directed both the

parties to conclude their arguments in the said Crl.M.P. and also

GAC, J Crlp_8000_2023

in the main case on 22.08.2023, failing which, the matter would be

decided on merits. Therefore, the case was adjourned to

22.08.2023 for arguments.

6. As per said impugned docket order, it is evident that an

issue was raised with regard to the jurisdiction after completion of

evidence in the case and main matter itself was posted for

arguments. Therefore, the trial Court has come to conclusion that

the said issue will be decided along with the main judgment.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not raised the point of

jurisdiction at the earliest point of time and both the parties have

also adduced oral and documentary evidence in this case and

when matter has come up for arguments, a petition was filed

under the point of jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial Court felt that

the Crl.M.P. and main case can be proceeded together.

Furthermore, even the contents of complaint also disclose that the

cheques were presented in the Bank at Banjara Hills branch.

8. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered

opinion that there is no error or irregularity in the docket dated

18.08.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1676 of 2023 in C.C.NI. No.3231 of 2022

passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate at Manoranjan Complex,

Hyderabad and the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

GAC, J Crlp_8000_2023

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as it is devoid

of merits.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 04.09.2023 TMK

GAC, J Crlp_8000_2023

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8000 OF 2023

Date: 04.09.2023

TMK