IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14240 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Afzal, S/o. Mohd.Haneef, R/o. H.No.10-1-1190/2, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Banking Ombudsman, Under Banking Ombudsman Act, Office At 6-1-54, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 I.C.I.C.I Bank, Branch Office at T.G.V. Mansion, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad. 3 Reserve Bank of India, Office at 6-1-54, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or otherwise calling for records in Case No. 200708006199 Vide Proceedings BO(H)SK/8021/C.No.6199/2007-08 on the file of the 1st Respondent and declare the rejection order dated 30-4-2008 as illegal, harsh, arbitrary and against the settled principles of law and as such/quash the same by allowing the writ petition directing the 1st Respondent to hear the complaint as per law and procedure under the law applicable to the Banking Ombudsman and also be pleased to pass any such other as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.K.G.BHATIA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.P.UGLE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14240 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Mohd. Afzal questioning the validity of the order passed by the Banking Ombudsman-1st Respondent in not entertaining his complaint. 2. The petitioner and one Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy had monetary transactions. Two cheques came to be issued by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy misused the cheques issued by him and presented one of the cheques and got it dishonoured and thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that ICICI Bank on which cheques have been drawn, accepted one of the cheques across the counter, despite the cheque being an account payee cheque. 4. The petitioner filed complaint before the consumer Court complaining deficiency in the services on the part of the ICICI Bank on whom the cheques are drawn. He also presented complaint against ICICI Bank before Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad. His complaint came to be rejected with the following order. “Please refer to your complaint Nos. 6199 against ICICI Bank. It has observed that the complaint is pending before the ‘Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum-1, Hyderabad vide case No. 192 of 2008 dated 11th March, 2008. In view of the above, the complaint stands closed under clause 9(3) (d) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 which reads as “the complaint does not pertain to the same subject, for which any proceedings before any Court, tribunal or arbitrator or any other forum is pending or a decree or award or order has been passed by any such Court, tribunal or arbitrator or any other forum”. In view of which we are unable to pursue the complaint with the Bank”. 5. The said order is under challenged in this writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that ICICI Bank-2nd Respondent is liable for punishment for accepting the cheque across the counter. 8. Indisputably the petitioner filed complaint before the Consumer Forum complaining deficiency in the service. ICICI Bank-2nd Respondent was made as Opposite Party. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, who is said to have misused two cheques, filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and the cheque bouncing case is pending trial. The question whether Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy misused the cheque is required to be examined by the Criminal Court in the cheque bouncing case. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, Banking Ombudsman under Banking Ombudsman Act is justified in closing the complaint of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 4th July, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14240 OF 2008 4th July, 2008.