Syed Yousuf Mannan, vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 137 Tel

Telangana High Court

Syed Yousuf Mannan, vs The State Of Telangana on 1 July, 2025

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

                  CRIMINAL PETITION No.7956 OF 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('the BNSS') seeking to set aside the

order dated 07.05.2025 passed in C.C.NI.No.4050 of 2022 by the Court

of the IX Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nampally, Hyderabad and to

restore the complaint to its original file.

2. The petitioner, being the complainant in the case, is prosecuting

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which pertains to the dishonour of a

cheque.

3. I have heard Mr.Md.Aslam, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

order was passed at the stage when summons had been issued to the

accused. He refers to the order, which records that the 'complainant

was present'. However, observing the conditional orders dated

05.11.2024 and 09.12.2024, concluded that the complainant was not

interested in prosecuting the case, as the process for execution of

bailable warrants had not been filed, dismissed the complaint for non

prosecution.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had relied

entirely on his counsel to conduct the proceedings on the said dates.

While the docket reflects that the complainant was present, his counsel

was absent. Due to the petitioner's lack of legal knowledge and

awareness of procedural requirements, he was unable to file the

process. Therefore prays for an opportunity to revive the complaint,

stating that he has no other effective remedy against respondent No.2

and deserves one final chance to prosecute the matter.

6. In support learned counsel cited the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in S. Anand v. Vasumathi Chandrasekar : AIR 2008

SC 1296 and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Keshavanand :

AIR 1998 SC 596, and pleaded that it has been held that a complaint

dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant may be restored when

such absence is not deliberate or wilful.

7. I have considered the submissions and perused the materials on

record.

8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel, it is

evident that the petitioner, who is the complainant, was present on the

relevant date, as recorded in the docket order. Although the docket

entries dated 05.11.2024 and 09.12.2024 reflect that bailable warrants

were ordered, the necessary process for their execution was not filed,

this omission does not appear to be deliberate or motivated by any

advised strategy, particularly as it runs counter to the petitioner's own

interests in pursuing the complaint. In this view and in the interest of

justice, this Court finds it appropriate to afford the petitioner one

opportunity to properly prosecute the case. Accordingly, the order

dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution is set aside.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside, and

C.C.NI.No.4050 of 2022 stands restored to the file of the trial Court. The

petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 22.07.2025,

upon such appearance, the learned Magistrate shall continue the

proceedings in accordance with law. This Criminal Petition is

accordingly allowed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Date: 01.07.2025 mmr

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7956 OF 2025

01.07.2025

mmr