THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.422 OF 2018

JUDGMENT:

The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant, seeking to set aside the dismissal order dated 21.05.2015 in C.C.No.450 of 2014 (old C.C.No.592 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad) passed by the learned VII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, “the trial Court”) wherein and where under the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent No.1/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the NI Act”).

2. Heard Mr. R. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.1. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused under Section 138 & 142 of N.I.Act r/w 420 of IPC for dishonor of the cheque bearing No.643345, dated 05.09.2011 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was numbered as C.C.No.450 of 2014. During the course of hearing, as there was no representation on behalf of complainant for many a times and as the complainant had not paid Batta for issuing summons to accused, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint vide order dated 21.05.2015 and acquitted the accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the seeking to set aside the order dated 21.05.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court ought to have given a fair opportunity to the appellant as the accused received the amount for which a cheque was issued for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The learned trial Court erroneously passed the impugned order without appreciating the circumstances explained by the appellant. He further contended that the learned trial Court ought to have given opportunity to the appellant for alternative or substitute mode for serving the summons on the respondent No.1/accused. Hence, seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the learned trial Court.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court upon affording a fair opportunity has rightly passed the impugned order and interference of this Court is unwarranted. He, therefore, seeks to dismiss the Appeal. 6. A perusal of the record shows that even though the learned trial Court has granted sufficient adjournments, there was no representation on behalf of the complainant and not even Batta was paid for issuing summons to accused. Therefore, the trial Court opined that the complainant is not evincing any interest in pursuing the case and accordingly, dismissed the calendar case and acquitted the accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any perversity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 21.05.2015 in C.C.No.450 of 2014 (old C.C.No.592 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad) passed by the learned VII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ E. V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 10.07.2024.

krl