IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8201 OF 2012 Between:
A. Satyam … Petitioner/complainant V/s.
K. Lakshmi Nasrimha Murthy Respondent No.1-Accused & Anr. … Respondents.
Counsel for Petitioner : Sri P. Ravi Shanker Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8201 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash orders dated 02/8/2012 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 54 of 2011 whereunder orders dated 07/12/2011 of V-Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hasthinapuram in C.C.No.260 of 2011 dismissing private complaint for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is confirmed.
2. Heard advocate for petitioner.
3. Advocate for petitioner submitted that due to en-mass transfer of Negotiable Instrument Act Cases from regular Court to the Special Court, complainant and his advocate could not make a note of date of adjournment and for that reason they could not pay the process-fee for execution of NBW ordered against the accused therein.
4. He further submitted that because of dismissal of complaint, petitioner has lost his valuable right and an opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute his case.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with this criminal petition.
6. The learned Magistrate observed that complainant has no interest to proceed with the case and for that reason he has not paid process-fee but the fact remains that it is a case filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque.
7. As seen from the complaint, the amount involved in the cheque is Rs.5,00,000=00 [Rs. Five Lakhs only] and according to the advocate for petitioner due to transfer of Negotiable Instruments Act Cases to the Special Court there was communication gap and that was the reason process-fee could not be paid and the complainant is very much interested in prosecuting his case.
8. Considering the facts of the case and submission of advocate for petitioner, I am of the view that an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to prove the allegations made against the accused. Both trial court and revisional court ought to have considered the cause assigned by the petitioner for non-payment of process-fee but without considering the same, dismissed the complaint on the ground that it is an old case.
9. For these reasons, orders under challenge are set aside and the order of dismissal of complaint passed by the trial court and upheld by the revisional court is set aside with a direction to lower court to restore back the complaint and decide it in accordance with law within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is allowed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
21/07/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8201 OF 2012 Circulation No 46 Date: 21 /07/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43