The High Court · 2025

3. Smt.Vani, Wo.B.S.Rao, R/o. 16-11-418/1, Moosarambag, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

4. Mr.Bolla Satya Venkata Sai, S/o.B.S.Rao, Rlo. 16-1141811, Moosarambag,, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Accused l to 3 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to C.C.No. 189 of 2018 on the file of Vlll Special Magistrate, Kukatpally, Rangareddy District and to quash the order dated 07.06.2018 passed in C.C.No.189 of 20'18 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PILLIX LAW FIRM, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The Court made the following: ORDER 7 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1'149 of 2O22 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4812 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner/complainant seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.'189 of 2018 on the file of learned Vlll Special Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District

2. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that the respondents/accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No 189 of 201B approached him and obtained huge amounts by making misrepresentations. lt is further the case of the complainant that accused on 20.04.2017 took Rs.20 lakhs from him and executed two post dated cheques for an amount of Rs.l0lakhs and Rs.B lakhs, further promising to pay Rs.:Z lakhs on the 1'r of ensuing month together with interest @ 2o/o per month and all the accused cheated the complainant. 3 Heard Mr.A.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. T.Madhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent-State. Despite service of notice and also substituted service of notice on respondent Nos.2 to 4, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record. 2 4' Learned counser for the petitioner submitted that the compraint filed by the petitioner/comprainant was taken on fire and the triar court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case and issued summons to the accused. After the matter was adjourned for three instances, wherein the petitioner was very much present, but when the matter was posted to 07.06.2018, the petitioner could not appear as he was unwell. The counser for the petitioner informed him that he wi, pay the process and get the matter posted for appearance of the accused. But the trial court has passed order under section 256,204(4) of Cr.p.C., holding that the complaint was absent and no representation was made and the matter was passed over till 5 p.m. and process was not paid, as such the complainant has no interest to file process and attend Court and dismissed the complaint acquitting the accused.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of the Court below in hording that the petitioner is not interested to pay process is erroneous and misconceived and thereby acquitting the accused A1 to 43 is against the principres of raw as herd by the Hon,bre Apex court. Further as seen from the docket proceedings, the petitioner/complainant has appeared before the court on a[ the dates of hearing, except on the date of impugned order dated 07.06.2018. Further, as per docket order dated 05.05.2018, the petitioner had paid process as well, but cover was not annBxed, which is only a technical defect and which can be 3 curable as well. As such, the trial Court ought to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner before dismissing and acquitting the accused Nos.1 to 3 on 07.06.2018.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. V. Keshvanandl , wherein in para I5 it was held as under- "What was the purpose of including a prctvision like Section 247 in the old Code (or Section 256 ,,n the new Code). lt affords some deterrence against dilatory tactics on the part of a complainant who sel the law in motton through his comptaint. An accused iho i, p", force to attend the Court on all posting days can be put to much harerssment by a complainant if he does nol turn up to the Courl on occaslons when his presence is necessa4/. Tt;e section, therefore, affords a protection to an accused against such tactics of the complainant. But that does not mean if the complainant is absent, Couft has a duty to ,acquit the accused in invitum".

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon another case held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Azeem v. A. Venkatesh & Another2, wherein rt was held as- 4) ln our opinion, the learned magistrate and the ttigh Courl have adopted a very strict and unjust attitude re,sulting in faiture of justice. ln our opinion, the learned lt4agistrate I 1998 sCC (cri)475 ' zooz 1t1 scc tza 4 committed an error in acquitting the accused only for absence of the complainant on one day and refusing to restore the complaint when sufficienf cause for the absence was shown by the comPlainant. 5) The impugned orders dated 22-6-2001 of the Metropolitan Magistrate and ctated 24-7-2001 of the High Coud respectively, are sel aslde The complaint ls restored and learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial of the case after issuance of formal notices to both the pafties of the next date to be fixed in the case The learned counsel appearing for the pafties are directed to inform the patlies to appear before the Courl of Metropolitan Magistrate on or before 9-9-2002 to ascertain the date fixed by the trial Judge for the case. lnthepresentcasealso,thepetitionerwasabsentforonesingle date i.e. on 07.06.20'1 8 and such absence is neither willful nor wanton and when the case is in summons stage,. wherein the presence of the petitioner/complainant is not required, the trial Court has erroneously without considering the stage of the case has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused and the absence of the complainant is neither intentional nor willful, due to which the trial court ought to have given an opportunitytothepetitioner.lnviewoftheabovestatedfactsandthe decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court the order pass-ed by the Court below dated 07.06.2018 may be set aside and seeks to grant direction to proceed with the trial of case in C.C'No.189 of 2O1B' \./ 5 B. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition. 9 Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record and in view of the Apex Court Judgment, the order dated 07.06.20.18 is set aside and the complaint in c.c.No.189 of 2018 on the file of vlll Special Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District is restored and the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case after issuance of formal notices to both sides by fixing a date for appearance before the trial court. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to inform the parties to appear before the trial court on or before og.o4.2o2s, to ascerterin the date fixed by the trial judge for hearing the case. '10 With the above direction, the criminal petition is allowed Miscellaneous petitions pending, if an1, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- T.TIRUMALA DEVI R:-GISTRAR \E:UTY \,1r="r,o* oFFrcER 1_ To, 1 The Vlll Special Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy Dis1. 2. The Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRI PILLIX LAW FIRM, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Statie of Telangana at 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] Slt//gh {L- HIGH COURT DATED: 1210312025 ORDER CRLP.No.1149 of 2022 q o (-l ,- -a1t==-- :i,.! li 14 lt- :,r- Y 0? ia'ir r.'J(* -) ill i 11,,_ =i-' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION c*{"b W