G.Sudhakar, v. A.Maraiah,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

ATHYDERABAD '

THURSDAY THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 289 OF 2010 (n.Appeal under Section 37 4(2) ot Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 14.09.2009 in C.C.No.1189 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the ll Addl. Judl. First Classlrtlagistrate, Kothagudem.

Between:

G.Sudhakar, S/o Ramaiah, Agriculture Rl/o Vemugunta (V), Mulakapalli, Khammam Dist.

...APELLANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND '1. A.Maraiah, S/o Durgaiah, Occ: Foreman, KTPS Rl/o Qr.No.BF 492, Ash Colony, K.T.P.S., New Paloncha, Khammam Dist. ...ACCUSED

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

...RESPODENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri SUNIL BABU VAJ RAM (Not Present) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None Appeared. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

Crl.Appeal No.289 of 2010 THE HONOURABLE SRI ]USTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No,289 OL2O10 JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 37aQ) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.') by the appellant-complainant aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem in C.C.No.1189 of 2007 dated 14.09.2009 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.

None appears on behalf of the appellant-complainant. Perused the record.

3.

This appeal is filed by the appellant-complainant questioning the acquittal of Accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Though the appeal was listed earlier,'there is no representation. When the matter was listed on 02.LL.2022, there is no appearance for the appellant, as such, this Court directed to post the matter to 10.11.2022 under the caption 'for dismissal'. 4.

Even when the matter is listed under the caption 'for dismissal', today also, there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant-

Crl.Appeal No.289 ot 2010 complainant. The case is quasi-criminal in nature and unless the appellant prosecutes his case diligently, the cases cannot be kept pending, for the said reason the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution.

5.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed for nonprosecution. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

Sd/. B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY GISTRAR //TRUE COPY/i SECTION OFF ER To,

1. The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Kothagudem' Bhadradri Kothagudem District'

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad (OUT).

3. One CC to Sri SUNIL BABU VAJRAIVI' Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies DL \.\-

HIGH COURT KS,J DATED:1011112022 \ ) 1 [ tEo ?i2]

ORDER

t-.4 CRLA.No.289 of 2010 CRIMINAL APPEAL IS DISI\4ISSED FOR NON-PROSECTUION @