Srinivas Rao Paturi v. Sri Vaishnavi Cold Storage

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 38 OF 2022 Appeal under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 08-07-2019 made in C.C. No. 194 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the XIX Special Magistrate at Hyderabad.

Between:

Srinivas Rao Paturi, S/o. Late Paturi Jaganmohan Rao, Age 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No. 123, G2, Geethika Residency, Near Satya Sai Nigamagamam. Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad 500 073 ...Appellant / Complainant AND Sri Vaishnavi Cold Storage, A Partnership Firm bearing No. 121l2011 Having its Office at Thorraguntapalem Village, Jaggayyapeta Town & Mandal, Krishna District - 521175, Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Managing Director Nelakuditi Hari Krishna Nelakuditi Hari Krishna, S/o. Late Nageshwara Rao, Aged 33 years, Occ. Partner of Sri Vaishnavi Cold Storage, R/o. D.No. 6-61, Rythupeta, Nandigama Town, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna Diskict, Andhra Pradesh. Nelakuditi Naga Sulochana Devi, Wo. Late Nageshwara Rao, Aged 51 years Occ. House wife, R7o. D.No. 6-61, Rythupeta, Nandigama Town, Nandigama Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh ...Accused (Al to A3)

4. The State ofTelangana, Re State of Telangana, Hydera . by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the ad p b

...Respondent / Respondent

Counsel for the Appeliant :

Sri Raghuram Sri Rama Rao Kochiri Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 & 3:

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 :

Sri M Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment:

/

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.38 OF 2o22 JUDGMENT:

1. This d.ppeal is filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 08.07.2019 in C.C.No.194 of 2O18 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 behatf of the State.

3.

C.C. is of the year, 2018. The appellant/complainant frled 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 a-lso 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. ,{3 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 hnd no ground to keep the file pending. Hence complaint is dismissed for default and the accused A I and A3 are acquitted."

6. The fact remains that for 19 adjournments, complainalt was continuously absent and counsel did not turn up for 1O 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, jh"

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.6,00,0O0/- 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 O8.07.2079 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 fi1e 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 on\r) towards cost as undertaken by him. Out of Rs.6,O0,000/-, the complainant shall pay Rs.2,00,OOO/- 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 Iiled 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 dismissai order shall stand restored. 1 1. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT //TRUE COPY'

REGISTRAR SE ON OFFICER To, '1. The XIX Special Magistrate at Hyderabad

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor. High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri Raghuram, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri Rama Rao Kochiri. Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies VA/gh

HIGH COURT DATED:1 8t1112024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.38 ot 2022 C\ ,.4U PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA ld,\ J)