HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 619 of 2008 O R D E R: This criminal petition is filed by the complainant seeking to quash the order dated 18-04-2007 passed in CC No. 207 of 2005 on the file of the III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad as confirmed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Courts, Hyderabad by order dated 14-08-2007 passed in Crl.R.P.No. 81 of 2007. 2. The petitioner is the complainant in CC No. 207 of 2005. He filed a private complaint against the 1st respondent for the offences punishable U/Sec. 138 r/w. Sec. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( for short ‘the Act’) alleging inter alia that the 1st respondent-accused entered into an agreement of sale dated 23-07-2004 for purchase of Flat No. 1 and 4 first floor, bearing No. 22-3-634, Purani Haveli Mir Alam Mandi, Hyderabad and that the 1st respondent-accused issued a cheque bearing No. 865315 dated 23-11-2004 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, NRI Branch, Hyderabad towards part payment of sale consideration. He deposited the chque in November, 2004 and the said cheque came to be returned with an endorsement that ‘Funds insufficient’ on 25-11-2004. It is his further case that he represented the cheque in question on 21-12-2004 and the cheque received the same fate. He issued a statutory notice under the Act on 03-01- 2005 to the 1st respondent-accused calling upon him to make good amount covered under the cheque in question. The notice returned unserved with an endorsement that the 1st respondent-accused is ‘out of country’. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant took cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec. 138 of the Act and registered the case as C.C. No. 207 of 2005 and directed the petitioner/complainant to take out summons to the 1st respondent-accused. 3. The complaint filed by him came to be dismissed U/Sec. 204 Cr.P.C. consequent on his failing to deposit process for taking out summons to the 1st respondent/accused on 18-04-2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-complainant filed a revision before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court, Hyderabad being Crl.R.P.No. 81 of 2007. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to offer sufficient cause for his absence on 18.04.2007 and for not depositing process on that day and thereby proceeded to dismiss the revision by order dated 14-08-2007. Hence this petition by the petitioner-complainant U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Notice to the 1st respondent came to be dispensed with as per the order in Crl.M.P.No. 7644 of 2010 dated 19-08-2010. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order of the trial court as well as the revisional Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner changed his counsel and on the date of dismissal of the complaint i.e, on 18- 04-2007, his new counsel was supposed to file vakalat but by the time his new counsel arrived the court complex, the case was called and dismissal order came to be passed. 7. I have perused the docket proceedings in CC No. 207 of 2005 and the Photostat copy of the complaint and other relevant material papers. 8. The calendar case No. 207 of 2005 was coming up for payment of process as on 18-04-2007 and the case came to be dismissed U/Sec. 204 Cr.P.C. for non-payment of process on that date. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that he changed his counsel and his new counsel was to file his vakalat on that day i.e, 18-04-2007 and by the time his new counsel arrived the court complex, the case was called and the same ended in dismissal. 10. Para No.4 of the grounds details the circumstances under which the case underwent unrepresented on 18-04-2007. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the quantum of amount involved in this case and the reasons offered by the petitioner in para No.4 of the grounds, I deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to pay the process for service of summons to the accused. 11. Therefore, the order dated 18-04-2007 passed by the trial court as confirmed by the revisional court by order dated 14.08.2007 is hereby set aside and CC No. 207 of 2005 is restored to file, directing the trial court to take further steps after restoration of the above case to file in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ____________ 19-08-2010 Mjl/*