Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 388 (TS)

Satish Reddy Sheri v. State of Telangana

2025-04-23

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

body2025
ORDER : (ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘ BNSS ’) by petitioners to quash/set-aside the order passed by II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally in Crl.M.P.No.3268 of 2024 in C.C.No.5394 of 2018 dated 17.10.2024 and to recall of NBW against them. 2. Heard Mr. P.Sree Charan, learned Amicus Curie for petitioners and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. Perused the material on record. 3. Respondent filed a case for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’). Petitioners failed to appear before the Court. NBW was issued against them. Petitioners filed a recall of NBW vide Crl.M.P.No.3268 of 2024. It was dismissed on 17.10.2024 on the ground that case pertains to 2018 and petitioners are frequently not appearing before the Court. It was also the contention of the respondent that NBW was issued against them previously, the same was recalled, but again they were absent. That petitioners have not complied with the terms of the compromise and as such the compromise was not fructified. A docket order dated 17.10.2024 was issued by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy, which is as follows: “Complainant present. A1 and A2 absent. NBW pending. Petition filed U/s. 70(2) Cr.P.C. and it is dismissed. For execution of NBW, PS Madhapur is directed to execute. Call on 21.11.2024.” 4. Revision petition was filed under Section 438(1) of BNSS , challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No.3268 of 2024 in C.C.No.5394 of 2018 dated 17.10.2024. 5. The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, passed the following order: “As per the record, the case before the Trial Court is of 2018. The Trial Court dismissed the recall petition on the ground that the accused are frequently not appearing before the Court and filing recall petitions due to which the case proceedings are stalled. The petitioners filed this petition against the dismissal of the recall petition.” 6. The order of NBW is under challenge. 7. The Trial Court dismissed the recall petition on the ground that the accused are frequently not appearing before the Court and filing recall petitions due to which the case proceedings are stalled. The petitioners filed this petition against the dismissal of the recall petition.” 6. The order of NBW is under challenge. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioner No.2 is aged 82 years and due to ill health, is unable to appear before the Court and petitioner No.1, son, is taking care of petitioner No.2 and hence, both were unable to attend the Court. It is further submitted that petitioners are willing to cooperate with the Court proceedings and conditions be imposed. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/de-facto complainant submitted that matter pertains to 2018 and it is a case under Section 138 of NI Act and that proceedings under the NI Act are summary proceedings and it has been 6 years, that petitioners are willfully dragging the matter, without cooperating and that order dated 17.10.2024, cannot be interfered. It is further submitted that in the order in Criminal Revision Petition No.88 of 2024 passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally, it was held that accused were frequently not appearing before the Court and were filing recall petitions due to which the case proceedings were getting stalled. 9. It is submitted that criminal revision petition filed by petitioners was held to be not maintainable under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., as order issuing NBW or order recalling NBW is purely is an interlocutory order. Be that as it may, this Court is only concerned with NBW issued on 17.10.2024, but not the order in Criminal Revision Petition dated 18.12.2024. 10. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 11. It is the case of complainant that petitioners are partners of M/S. SNG Constructions and Developers, that they started construction of a residential complex at J.P.Nagar, Moodapet, titled as ‘Bali Reddy Bhavan’. That accused No.1 approached the complainant for sale of two flats in first floor (Flat Nos.101 & 102) @ Rs.50 lakhs for each flat and that the accused induced the complainant to agree to purchase the flats and an amount of Rs.14,20,000/- was transferred. That respondent No.2 sought for execution of agreement of sale. 12. That accused No.1 approached the complainant for sale of two flats in first floor (Flat Nos.101 & 102) @ Rs.50 lakhs for each flat and that the accused induced the complainant to agree to purchase the flats and an amount of Rs.14,20,000/- was transferred. That respondent No.2 sought for execution of agreement of sale. 12. That on enquiry, respondent No.2 came to know that the entire first floor of the complex falls to the share of Land Lord Mr.Joseph Reddy and when the same was questioned, petitioners/accused avoided and when demanded to return the advance amount i.e., 14,20,000/-, complainant was issued a cheque bearing No.160246, dated 30.05.2018 for Rs.14,20,000/- drawn on IndusInd Bank, Miyapur Branch. That when the complainant presented the cheque through his banker Oriental Bank of Commerce, Banjara Hills Branch on 02.06.2018, the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide cheque returned Memo dated 04.06.2018. A legal notice issued on 25.09.2018 was returned unclaimed on 04.10.2018 and hence, C.C.No.5394 of 2018 was filed. The case is pending from 2018. It is apparent that accused have been avoiding to co-operate with the proceedings of case as recorded by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge. 13. Learned counsel for petitioners stated that petitioner No.2 is aged 82 years and suffering from ill health and old age problems, hence, indulgence be shown to recall NBW issued against accused No.2. This Court, having considered the entire factual matrix of the case and taking into consideration the age of petitioner No.2 and medical certificates placed on record at Page Nos.28 to 36 (of Yashoda Hospitals), is of the opinion that interests of justice would be met, if NBW issued vide docket order dated 17.10.2024 pending execution PS Madhapur is recalled qua accused No.2. 14. It is made clear that this Court has considered the age factor and the medical certificates placed before this Court and it is for this reason, in the interests of justice, NBW issued against accused No.2 i.e., Narender Reddy Sheri, “IS RECALLED”. 15. Needless to state that accused No.2 shall be present on the next date of hearing i.e., 25.04.2025 before the trial Court and if accused No.2 is not present on the next date of hearing, the trial Court shall initiate appropriate proceedings for his presence. 16. NBW issued against petitioner/accused No.1 (Satish Reddy Sheri) vide order dated 17.10.2024 is “NOT RECALLED”. 17. 16. NBW issued against petitioner/accused No.1 (Satish Reddy Sheri) vide order dated 17.10.2024 is “NOT RECALLED”. 17. For reasons stated, Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.