Mrs. Yelamanchili Hima Bindu v. The State Of Telangana

[ 32es ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 475OF 2024 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC against the daled 28.12.2023 in Crl. MP. No. 1330 of 2023 in CC. Nl. No. 17723 oI 2022 on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Judicial I Class Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

Between:

Mrs. Yelamanchili Hima Bindu, D/o. Y. Sesha Rao, Aged 46 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Flat No. 301, H.No. 11-13-'1364, Road no. 3 Vijay Laxmi Annexe, Saroornagar, K.V. Ranga Reddy, Telangana - 500035, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. The State of Telangana, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana

2. Mrs. Kundam Jewellers and Exporters, Rep. by its l\Ianager, Mr. Biradar Ram Rao, S/o. Mr. Keshav Rao, Aged 52 years, Occ. lvlanager, Shop No.47,48, 49, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500001. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Sectron 482 C:PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in CC Nl No. 17723 of 2022 On the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate cum Judicial lClass Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex' Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Crl P., Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.B.S.S.B.K. Ranjit representing Sri K. V. V. Ramana Rao Counset for the Respondent No. 1: Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor Gounsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri Vishakha Sharma The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.475 OF 2o24 ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/ accused seeking to set aside the order dated 28.12.2023 in Crl.M.!.No.1330 of 2023 in C.C.N.I.No.17723 of 2022 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate-cumJudicial I Class Magistrate, Manoranjal Complex, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").

2.

Heard Mr. B.V.S.S.B.K.Ranjit, learned counsel representing Mr.K.V.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing on-line, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Abhijay Jhawar, learned counsel representing Mr.Vishakha Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainant is doing business in Gold & Jewellery under the name and style of "Kundan Jewellers & Exports" situated at Babu Khan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. The present complaint is filed through its Manager who is empowered to file the present complaint as per the authorization letter dated \\

10.03.2022. It is stated that the petitioner/accused approached the complainant and purchased goid ornaments worth Rs.6,98,876/- under invoice reference bearing No.KJE/Ref/2O2l/OOO3, dated O1.04.2021. It is stated that upon purchase, the accused promised the complainant that she shall repay the money within a short period. But the accused avoided to pay the money. On persistent demands made by the complainant, the accused had issued cheque bearing No.097397 daled 29.O1.2022 for Rs.6,98,876/- drawn on State Bank of India, Diisukhnagar Bralch, Hyderabad. On presentation the said cheque \[ras returned dishonoured with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act.

Whileso, the petitioner submitted an application vide Cr1.M.P.No.133O of 2023 in C.C.N.1.No.17723 of 2022 before the trial Court, under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, praying to send the alleged Tax invoice and cheque with that of admitted signatures to Telangana Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for the purpose of comparison and alalysis. The trial Court, vide impugned order, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

J

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court, vide impugned order, erroneously dismissed the application filed by her under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act by stating that the petitioner had not stated that the complainant had forged her signatures, in collusion with others at the time of Section 251 of Cr.P.C. examination. Therefore, she seeks to a]low this Revision.

5.

Learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.2 would submit that the trial Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, rightly passed the impugned order and interference of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted. Relying upon the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Abbas Haji Vs. T.N.Channakeshavar, the decision passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Ranjit Vs. State of U.P. and another2 and the decision passed by the High Court of Andhra \ ( Pradesh, at Amaravathi in Lakkapamula Rani Vs. Manda Batasari3, he seeks to dismiss this Revision. 6.

The trial Court, vide impugned order, observed that the cheque was returned by the Bank unpaid with an endorsement "funds insufficient" and not "difference of signature on cheque". I 1zofo1 e Supreme Court Cases 606 ' rln lzozo;:-s att ru sz I run 2ozz at s:

;

The trial Court further observed that the accused, at the time of her Section 251 of Cr.P.C. examination, did not stated that the complainant, in collusion with others, had forged her signatures on the alleged Tax Invoice and the cheque. Even upon service of summons she failed to give the said reply. Therefore, the trial Court opined that no purpose would be served in sending the said documents to Forensic Laboratory for Expert Opinion and that the present application is filed by the petitioner to drag on the proceedings. Therefore, the learned Judge, trial Court, rightly and appropriately dismissed the said application. So, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the Revision is liable to be dismissed.

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ \ SE ION OFFICER To, '1 . The X Mekopolitan Magistrate-cum-Judicial I Class Magistrate, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

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

3. One CC to Sri K. V. V. Ramana Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri Vishakha Sharma, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies VH/PR %

/, HIGH COURT DATED: 2811012024 t nPs P o .,1 3[ Ji ,J

ORDER

CRLRC.No.475 ot 2024 A1 OE p DISMISSING THE Crl.RC tr }}