Smt. M. Tirupathamma v. B. Srinivas And Another

{

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE K.SURENDER IA al No. 1 OF Appeal under Section 37aQ) of Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 20.06.2008 in C.C.No.994 of 2004 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad. Between:

Smt.M.Tirupathamma, W/o. Narayana Reddy, aged about 50 Years, R/ o. 13-6435/1.02,Langar house, Hyderabad.

AND ...Appellant/Complainant.

1. B. Srinivas, S / o. Y adagir| R/ o. 1.-4-27 -71 / 199, Padmashali Colony, Hyderabad.

2. The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

...Respondents/ Accused.

Counsel for the Appeilant: Sri Y.V.S.S.Siva Sarma. Counsel for Respondent No.L: None appeared.

Counsel for Respondent No.2: The Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following: ]UDGMENT

Crl.Appeal No.1580 of 2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL AP PEAL No.1580 OF 2009 JUDGMENT:

The present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 37a Q) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") by the appellant/complainant seeking to set aside the order passed tn C.C.No.994 of 2004 on 20.06.2008 by the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2.

Perused the record.

3.

The appellant/complainant is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad I I which reads as follows:

"Complainant absent. Accused absent. No representation. Complainant continuously absent from 21.09.2007. He has not shown any interest to proceed with the case inspite of giving reasonable opportunities, it is a old matter 2004. Accused also absent. No representation, Hence proceed with the further steps. Complainant called absent. Complaint is dismissed for default".

4. As seen from the order, the complainant was continuously absent from 2t.09.2007 and there was no representation from the complainant side. Though reasonable opportunities were granted the I

Crl.Appeal No.1580 of 200:

\ complainant failed to prosecute his case. The proceedings under \ Section 138 of NI Act should be prosecuted diligently by the \ complainant after filing the complaint. If the complainant is absent continuously and fails to prosecute the case, the Court has ample power to dismiss the complaint under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. As seen from the order dated 20.06.2008, there is no irregularity that was committed by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the complaint for default.

5.

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

/ Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR L:]D //rRUECoPv/ / SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Namoallv, Hvderabad. (with record) Z. fnu Stuti6n H'ouse Officer, Langar House Police Station, Hyderabad'

3. One CC to Sd Y.V.S.S.Siva Sarma, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. (Ol.rf)

5. Two CD Copies ]CK rl

\ t HIGH COURT DATED:2}/09/2022 I I gJ n $E :o !) rT lh\\

ORDER

I paI DIF CRLA-No.1580 of 200c) Dismissing the Criminal Appeal.

() a \ I