APHC010537812018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3369]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1952/2018 Between:

1. MUTTA NAIDU, R/AT D.NO.4-163, BC COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD.

2. UNUKURI MUKUNDA RAJU, R/AT D.NO.3-183/1, BAJI JUNCTION, BUTCHIRAJUPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated 16.04.2018 passed in D.D.R.No.7088 of 2017 on the file of the Third Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam and pass.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. MSVS SUDHA RANI

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following ORDER:

1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C."), is preferred by the petitioner/complainant assailing the Order dated 16.04.2018 passed in D.D.R.No.7088 of 2017 by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (for short, "the Trial Court"). By the impugned Order, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 190(1)(a) and 200 of the Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘N.I.Act’), based on the dishonour of the cheque issued by the accused.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court.

3. The salient facts of the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court are summarized as follows:

The accused borrowed a sum of ₹2,00,000/- from the complainant on 07.02.2016 and executed a promissory note on the same day, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum. As the accused subsequently failed to discharge the debt, and upon repeated demands by the complainant, he issued a cheque No.507838 dated 04.11.2017 for an amount of ₹1,00,000/-, drawn on Bank of India, NAD Kotharoad Branch, Visakhapatnam. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned unpaid with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice on 13.11.2017 demanding payment of the entire debt amount together with costs; however, the notice was returned with the endorsement “intimation served for two days, door locked but not claimed”.

4. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, dismissed the complaint by its Order dated 16.04.2018 in D.D.R.No.7088 of

2017. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/complainant submitted that the petitioner had not demanded any amount other than the dishonoured cheque amount in the complaint; the Trial Court failed to consider the prayer in the complaint, wherein the petitioner sought that the complaint be taken on file, the matter be enquired into, the accused be punished for the offences under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the N.I. Act, and compensation equivalent to double the cheque amount be awarded from out of the fine that may be imposed on the accused under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C; the dismissal of the complaint by the Trial Court without taking cognizance is, in itself, illegal and erroneous.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused, while supporting the findings of the Trial Court, submitted that no interference with the Trial Court's Order is warranted.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

8. Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

1) Is the Trial Court justified in dismissing the complain