Though this matter is listed for admission, with the

consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for

final disposal.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3.

The present petition is filed under Section 482

of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

"The petitioner is praying to allow this

criminal petition and quash the order dated

16.02.2019

passed

in

Criminal

Case

No.1002/2017 by the Hon'ble Addl. Civil Judge

and JMFC, Court Humnabad in allowing the

application filed u/Sec.138(c) of Negotiable

Instruments

Act

thereby

dismissing

the

complaint filed by the petitioner in the interest

of justice and equity.

3

4.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of

Cr.P.C. seeking action against the respondent herein for

the

offence

under

Section

138

of

the

Negotiable

Instruments Act. After completion of the formality, the

process came to be issued and the respondent/accused

was being tried in C.C.No.1002/2017. After conclusion of

the trial, an application under Section 138(c) of N. I. Act

came to be filed by the respondent/accused, which was

opposed by the complainant. The learned trial Judge after

considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey and

Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713, allowed the

application and dismissed the complaint in toto.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner places

reliance on the very same judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh (Supra) and

contends that even if the learned Magistrate was

proceeded to apply the legal principles enunciated in

4

Yogendra Pratap Singh (Supra), the liberty should have

been reserved for the complainant in terms of paragraph

No.40 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

"40. The other question is that if the

answer to question (i) is in the negative, can

the complainant be permitted to present the

complaint again notwithstanding the fact that

the period of one month stipulated under

Section 142(b) for the filing of such a

complaint has expired."

6.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent

opposes the petition by following the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap

Singh (Supra), which was referred by the learned

Magistrate in the impugned order and sought for dismissal

of the petition.

7.

In view of the above, this Court find sufficient

force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner. Since the respondent also relying on the said

judgment, dismissal of the petition in toto is incorrect and

5

liberty should have been granted for the petitioner for

further prosecuting the matter in accordance with law.

Accordingly, pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed in part.

While

maintaining

the

impugned

order

dated

16.02.2019 passed in C.C.No.1002/2017, the complaint is

dismissed. The liberty is reserved for the petitioner to

prosecute the respondent in accordance with law in terms

of paragraph No.40 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh (Supra).

Sd/-

JUDGE

Srt