IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE AT: Nampally, Hyderabad
Revision Petition No.
of 2013
IN CC.No. 11 of 2012 Between: B. Bixamaiah S/o. B.Shankaraiah, Aged About 42 years, Occ. LIC Agent, R/o. H.No. 8-4-370/176, Raj Nagar, Borabonda, Hyderabad-18 ... Petitioner/ Complainant AND Darmini Gopi Madhusudhan, S/o. D.Prakasham, Aged About. , Occ. Business, R/o. 16-4-234/235, Fort Road, Warangal-506002. … Respondent /Accused CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C May It Please Your Honour, The humble petition of the petitioner above named most respectfully submits: This is a petition filed against the impugned order dated 06-062012 passed in complaint case No. 11 of 2012 by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. By virtue of the said impugned order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner U/s. 204(4) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner begs to prefer this petition against the order of the learned Magistrate on the following among other grounds: Grounds: 1. The order of the lower Court is against law.
2. The lower Court has erred in dismissing the complaint. The negligent conduct made by clerk, which had put my client to loss, severe hardship and failure of justice. 3. That the, learned Judge of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court had dismissed my client’s complaint against accused on 06-06-2012 for the reason of not filing the process, U/s. 204(4) of Cr.P.C. 4. It is respectfully submitted that, previous date of the case was on 12-03-2012 and on that day the above mentioned case is not listed and when I, had enquired about the same the concerned clerk said that case file is missing and latter on in the day the concerned clerk said that he will give a date for the case, then my advocate had requested the concerned clerk to give the same date i.e. 03-07-2012 because a connected case pertaining to same accused as been posted on that day before the Hon’ble III A.C.M.M. Court, to which he consented. 5. It is respectfully submitted that, on 03-07-2012 I had came to court to attend the case and I was shocked to know that my case had been dismissed for not filing the process on 06-06-2012. 6. It is respectfully submitted that, ‘A’ diary proceedings of the Hon’ble III A.C.M.M court for the date of 12-03-2012 does not have any proceeding for the above mentioned case i.e., CC.No. 11 of 2012. 7. It is respectfully submitted that, there is no need to file the process again because the process/summon which was filed previously was served upon the accused and my advocate was ready with the memo stating the same on 12-03-2012, but the negligent conduct of the concerned clerk at the end proved costly to me in reaching the ends of justice. 8. It is respectfully submitted that, my advocate had filed a complaint against the concerned clerk on 06-07-2012 and it is still pending.
9. It is respectfully submitted that, the Hon’ble III A.C.M.M. Court ought not to have dismissed the complaint under Section 204 (4) of the Cr.P.C. simply because the complainant had not filed the process; instead the Hon’ble Court may have given a last chance to file the process. Moreover, there was no requisite of filing the process once again, because previously issued process had been served upon the accused.
It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be Pleased to order TO RESTORE the CC.No. 11 of 2012 on the file of learned Judge of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
Petitioner/ Complainant
Verification
I, B. Bixamaiah, do hereby verify that the contents from paras 1 to ______ are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and personal belief and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein. Affirmed at Hyderabad on this
day of July, 2013.
Petitioner/ Complainant
IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE AT: Nampally, Hyderabad
CRL.M.P.No.
OF 2013
IN Revision Petition No. of 2013 IN CC.No. 11 of 2012 [On the file of learned Hon’ble III A.C.M.M] Between: B. Bixamaiah S/o. B.Shankaraiah, Aged About 42 years, Occ. LIC Agent, R/o. H.No. 8-4-370/176, Raj Nagar, Borabonda, Hyderabad-18 ... Petitioner/ Complainant AND Darmini Gopi Madhusudhan, S/o. D.Prakasham, Aged About. , Occ. Business, R/o. 16-4-234/235, Fort Road, Warangal-506002. … Respondent /Accused PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT
For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of [
] of days in filing the
revision petition under section 397, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Place: Hyderabad Date:
Advocate for Petitioner
IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE AT: Nampally, Hyderabad CRL.M.P.No.
OF 2013
IN Revision Petition No. of 2013 IN CC.No. 11 of 2012 [On the file of Learned Hon’ble III A.C.M.M] Between: B. Bixamaiah ... Petitioner/ Complainant AND Darmini Gopi Madhusudhan, … Respondent /Accused
AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY I, B. Bixamaiah S/o. B.Shankaraiah, Aged About 42 years, Occ. LIC Agent, R/o. H.No. 8-4-370/176, Raj Nagar, Borabonda, Hyderabad-18, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath a under.
1.
I am the Petitioner herein and complainant in main the
complaint filed under section 200 Cr.P.C, R/w 138. I state that I am aware of the facts and circumstances of this case and hence competent to swear to this affidavit. 2.
I state that for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition,
the petition filed by me under section 397 of Cr.P.C may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit. 3.
I state that this petition filed against the impugned order
dated 06-06-2012 passed in complaint case No. 11 of 2012 by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. By virtue of the said impugned order, the learned
Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner U/s. 204(4) of Cr.P.C. 4.
Due to my advocate waiting for the result of enquiry filed
by him against the concerned bench clerk. I could not file the revision petition within the stipulated time and a delay of [ ] days caused.
The delay caused is neither willful nor
intentional, but it is for the above afore said reasons only. 5.
I am advised of good case on merits and will be put to
irreparable loss and hardship if the accompanying petition is not allowed. On the contrary, no hardship or loss would be caused to respondent if the accompanying petitioner is allowed and I am allowed to contest the case on merits. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of [
] days for filing the revision under
section 397 of Cr.P.C and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Wherefore, I pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to ALLOW the accompanying petition as prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity.
DEPONENT VERIFICATION I, B. Bixamaiah, the above named deponent, do hereby verify on this the ______ day of July, 2013 at Hyderabad that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and that nothing material has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT Sworn before me:
