Telangana High Court
Srinivas Rao Paturi vs Sri Vaishnavi Cold Storage on 18 November, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.38 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant
against the order dated 08.07.2019 in C.C.No.194 of 2018
passed by the learned XIX Special Magistrate at Hyderabad.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/complainant and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
3. C.C. is of the year, 2018. The appellant/complainant
filed the case against A-1 to A-3 on the ground that A-1 firm
had to pay Rs.50,44,764/- to the complainant. Cheque
bearing No.999929 for the said amount was given on
06.03.2018. Since the said cheque was returned unpaid on
13.03.2018, personal cheque of A-3 dated 14.03.2018 was
handed over to the complainant. The said cheque also when
presented for clearance was returned unpaid on 20.03.2018.
4. The complainant got issued notices for the two
dishoroured cheques. However, since the amount was not
paid, the complaint was filed against A-1 to A-3 for the
dishonour of both the cheques.
5. Learned Special Magistrate by order dated 08.07.2019
dismissed the complaint. The order reads as under:
"Complainant absent. A2 present. A3 absent petition
filed and allowed. Counsel for complainant also not
present. No representation. Docket shows that for the
last 19 adjournments complainant continuously absent.
For last 10 adjournment the matter is coming for trial,
but at any point of time either the complainant or their
counsel did not turned up. It seems the complainant
and their counsel have no interest to proceed with the
case. I find no ground to keep the file pending. Hence
complaint is dismissed for default and the accused A1
and A3 are acquitted."
6. The fact remains that for 19 adjournments,
complainant was continuously absent and counsel did not
turn up for 10 adjournments. In the said circumstances, the
complaint was dismissed.
7. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would submit that the Appeal could not be
preferred on account of COVID. In fact, the
appellant/complainant was misled by his close associate
regarding the case, as such, the complainant cannot be made
to suffer in the said circumstances. He further submitted
that the complainant is inclined to abide by any conditions
that may be imposed by this Court in the event of restoration
of the complaint to its original file.
8. The prosecution of A-3 is on the basis of cheque being
subsequently given by her after the cheque given by A-2 on
behalf of A-1 was dishonoured. Admittedly, there is no
outstanding insofar as A-3 is concerned. The transactions
were in between complainant and A-1 firm.
9. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the complainant
is ready to deposit Rs.6,00,000/- towards costs for wasting
considerable time of the Court below by not attending the
Court though complaint was filed.
10. To give a fair chance to prosecute the case, the order
dated 08.07.2019 can be set aside insofar as A-1 and A-2 are
concerned. The complaint stands dismissed against A-3.
Accordingly, the complaint is restored on the file of concerned
Court having the jurisdiction at present (since XIX Special
Magistrate, Hyderabad stands abolished). The complainant
shall pay Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh only) towards cost
as undertaken by him. Out of Rs.6,00,000/-, the
complainant shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- to Telangana High
Court Bar Association, Rs.2,00,000/- to Sainik Welfare Board
and Rs.2,00,000/- to the Legal Services Authority,
Hyderabad within four weeks from the date of this order.
Proof of payment of costs shall be filed before this Court and
the Magistrate shall verify the payment made before restoring
the complaint. Failure to deposit the said amount within the
stipulated time, the dismissal order shall stand restored.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 18.11.2024
dv
