Telangana High Court
CRLRC/431/2024 of Pappula Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana on 29 December 2023
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 431 OF 2024 Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC against the Docket Order dated
IN THE HIGH COURT [FOR THE ]STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 431 OF 2024
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC against the Docket Order dated22-04.2015 passed in C.F. No.881 of 2015 on the file of the learned HonbleJudicial Magistrale of First Class, at Godavarikhani.
Between:
Pappula Srinivas, S/o. Ramchandram, Aged 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.4-2-41, Annapurna Colony, Medipally Road, Jyothinagar, NTPC, RamagundamMandal, Karimnagar District.4-2-41, Annapurna Colony, Medipally Road, Jyothinagar, NTPC, RamagundamMandal, Karimnagar District.
...PETITIONERYCOMPLAINANT.
AND
1. The State of Telangana, through SHO., P.S., NTPC, Ramagundam,Karimnagar District, Rep. by it's Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature atHyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.Karimnagar District, Rep. by it's Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature atHyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.2. Bodla Anjaneyulu, S/o. Kailasam, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o.H.No.21-2-6411, Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhani Town, Ramagundam(M), Karimnagar District.H.No.21-2-6411, Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhani Town, Ramagundam(M), Karimnagar District.
...RE SPON DE NT/AC CUSE D.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. VENKATESHWAR VARANASI
Counsel for the Respondent.l:ASST. PUBLTC PROSECUTOR (TG)
Counsel for the Respondent.2:SRI D BHASKAR REDDY
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPALCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.431 of 2o24
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397and 40 1 Cr.P.C against the docket order in C.F.No.88 1 of 2015, dated22.04.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class atGodavarikhani (for short 'the tria-l Court').2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainantlost his two cheques bearing Nos.O40445 and 040446, datedL7.06.2O14 in respect of which the petitioner also lodged acomplainant beforc the banker i.e., SBH, Krishnagar Branch, with arequest to stop payment of the said cheques. On O 1.03.2015, thepetitioner received a legal notice from the oflice of Sri S.Sanjay Kumar,Advocate, Godavarikhani, in which the petitioner found thatrespondent No.2 has instructed the said counsel to issue the legalnotice under Section 138 of N.I. Act. On that the petitioner hasshocked and found that the said cheques are committed theft byrespondent No.2. On that the petitioner approached respondent No.2personally and requested him to handover the saicl cheques to thepetitioner. But respondent No.2 bluntly refused to do so. On that thepetitioner got issued a proper reply to the said legal notice, on 10.03.2015 and after issuance of the reply notice, [the ][petitioner]approached the Police and tried to [give ]a complaint [against]respondent No.2 with regard to committing theft of cheques. [But ][the]police did not take any action against respondent No.2 and stated thatthe matter is 'civil in nature'- In fact committing theft [of ][bwo ][cheques]by respondent No.2 from the house of the [petitioner is ]an [offence and]which is punishable under Section 379 of IPC and misusing [one ][of]such cheque i.e., 040446 with a dishonest inducing [delivery ][of]property of making alternation is an offence punishable under Section42O of IPC. The signature of the petitioner is also doubted. [If ][the]signature of the petitioner is forged; respondent [No.2 ][also liable ][to ][be]punished under Section 465 of IPC.
3. The trial Court upon appreciating the material [facts ][before ][it ][has]passed the following docket order:
"Complainant present, exomined as PW1. Heard, gone throughrecord. This Court find no meits in this petition and as seen from [PW1]st(ltement there is no moterial to sag thot of offence occurred [and ][its]continuation matter. Hence this complaint dismissed as [there ][is ][no]pima facie."
4. This Court vide Order dated 27.O4.2O22 in CrI.R.C.(SR) [No.319B]of 2022 heid that as against an interlocutory order, a [Revision ][under]Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code is not [maintainable]
5. In view of thc above, it is evident that the proceedings hereunderare squarely covered by the order dated 27 .O4.2022 in Crl.R.C (SR)No.3198 of 2022 passed by this Court and therefore, this Court is notinclined to entertain this Revision.
6. In the light of the discussion made herein beforc, this CriminalRevision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNADEPUw RlGrsrRAR,y_-'SECTION OFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
To,
1. The Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Godavarikhani.
2. One CC to SRI VENKATESHWAR VARANASI Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to SRI D BHASKAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the [State ]of [Telangana, at]Hyderabad. [OUT]Hyderabad. [OUT]
5. Two CD Copies
TL/gha
HIGH COURTDATED:291'1212O23
ORDER
CRLRC.No.431 of 2024
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL R.C.
1HE [S141](\qoo01 [JUL ]2Ur?a**t)ESr,ATCt{gO