ALLOWED QUASH PROCEEDING.

 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to stay of all further proceedings including the order, passed in Crl.R.P.No. on the file of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapur District, where under and whereby the Revision Petition filed against the order,  in DVC on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur, which was dismissed for default, was confirmed. 2.     Heard.  3.  The brief facts are that the petitioner filed Crl. Revision Petition against the order, in DVC No.  The petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and since then, the matter was coming up for cross-examination by the respondents.  The case was posted on  for cross-examination of the petitioner.  But, the petitioner has not attended the Court on that date due to dharna.   The trail Court dismissed the DVC for default, as there was no representation by the petitioner and inspite of conditional orders.  Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the revision petition and the same was also dismissed.  Hence, the present Criminal Petition.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not attend the Court for cross-examination due to Dharna, as there was no transport facility on.     On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 contended that since a long time, the petitioner was not coming to the Court for the purpose of cross-examination, therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed DVC and the same was confirmed in revision petition and the orders need no interference by this Court.   To secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court or to carry out the order passed under this Code, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked or exercised.  As seen from the order of the trial Court, only on one occasion i.e. on  the petitioner was absent, therefore, the petition was dismissed for default.  As a matter of fact, the respondents were also absent on that day. Proper explanation was given by the petitioner stating that due to dharna, there was no transport facility for the petitioner to attend the Court.  Therefore, absence of the petitioner is not shown to be wanton or wilful.  Therefore, in view of the fact that the petition is filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for various reliefs, the trial Court ought to have given one more opportunity to the petitioner to attend the Court.  Considering these facts, the impugned order can be set aside and DVC can be restored to file.  Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.  However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall attend the Court on the date so fixed by the trial Court for the purpose of cross-examination.  Since the DVC is of the year 2009, the trial Court shall dispose of the same within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties.  Hence allowed  quashed proceedings.  The above case is argued by me on behalf of petitioner/complainant and got favorable orders.

DISMISSED QUASH PROCEEDINGS FILED BY THE ACCUSED

The petitioners/accused have filed a  quash proceedings u/s.482 of Cr.P.c on the ground that the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant with malafide intention and violation of Bhajan Lal’s.  Further the Court below without following the procedure  the complaint was referred to the Police to investigate  the matter and many criminal cases pending in the Chittisgarh State.  Therefore C.C. may be  quashed.    The respondent/ complainant  denied  the contentions raised in the quash proceedings  and stated true and correct facts of the case, submitting that she has made allegations against the accused that they came to the residence of the complainant and insisted to sign on blank  papers and further insisted to withdraw the O.P. which was pending before the Family Court CCC Hyderabad. The same was refused by the respondent/complainant. Then all accused mercilessly beaten to the respondent and ran away from that  place. Hence  she filed a complaint before the court below requesting to refer to the police. The Court below after enquiry  and taken on the file under sec.323 and 506 of IPC. (Indian Penal Code). Further she contended that two cases were filed in the State of Chittisgarh.  Out two, one MC (Maintenance case) was become infractuous and another was got transferred to Hyderabad  Andhra Pradesh. Further she contended that the offence took place at Sanjeev Reddy Nagar at Hyderabad  and the said area will come with in the jurisdiction of   Nampally Criminal Court at Hyderabad.  Therefore  the complaint is well with in the jurisdiction of this State.   The Hon’ble High Court after hearing the both the counsels and dismissed the quashed proceedings on the ground that the prima-facie,  the offence under section 323 and 506 is established and requires trail in the matter.  Therefore there is no ground is made out to quash the C.C. Hence dismissed quashed proceedings.  The above case is argued by me on behalf of respondent/complainant and got favourable orders.

DIRECTED NOT TO DEDUCT LOAN AMOUNT FROM THE SALARY OF THE APPLICANT

The applicant is a Operator Grade-II in the irrigation department Government of Andhra Pradesh.  He obtained  personal loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest @12% of the loan amount to meet his family needs.  he was also paid nine (9) installments continuously to the State Bank of Hyderabad. The rest of 27 installments were not paid due financial Constrains.   In fact, the Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad was informed to the applicant that they EMI amount will be  recover  through the applicant’s salary account.  But they did not do so.  The Bank never acted diligent to recover of remaining amount from the applicant.  After laps of 5 ½ years,  all of sudden the bank without issuing the notice to the applicant and   communicated letter to  the respondent. No. 4  stating that to make recovery/deduct an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month from the salary account of the applicant. the total rest of loan amount is 1,94,173/- is due to bank, so that they can close his personal loan account at the earliest in which the applicant is disputing the same and the bank is not entitled to recover the such amount as it is a excess claim.   Therefore the bank has failed to take steps to recover the installments as and when the applicant as became a defaulter.  He  submits that he became a defaulter for payment of personal loan amount of Rs.4000/- from October, 2007.   The cause of action arose from October, 2007.  From that date, the bank has to file a suit for recovery of loan amount within three years i.e. October 2010 from the date of default.  But the bank failed to do so.  For taking into consideration of cause of action that the last installment  is the criteria to file a suit.  Thus the recovery of claim amount is barred by limitation.  Therefore, it is outdated debt and the bank is not entitled recovery the outdated debt as per the limitation act. The applicant further submits that the Respondents 4 to 6 are not entitled to recover the loan amount as per letter dated 05.11.2011 as debt is out dated debut.  The bank is not entitled to gain wrongfully.  The applicant further submits that if the Respondents 4 to 6 made any deductions from the salary of the applicant as per the letter dated 05.11.2011 that will give a fresh cause of action to the  bank.  And also it will cause a irreparable loss to the applicant.   The respondents 4 to 6 are showing over anxiety to implement and tried recover an amount of Rs. 12,000/- from the applicant’s salary account as per letter issued by the SBH Bank vide letter dated 05-11-2011.  Assuming that he was a defaulter,  for recover of the personal loan amount is concerned, the bank ought  to have  file a civil suit before competent civil court and obtain decree from the said court and based on that a E.P.  has to  file  for realization of the decreetal amount  against the applicant. In this case nothing was done.   Based on the letter dt. 5-11-2011 the respondents 4 to 6  deducted an amount of Rs. 12,000/- from the salary account of the applicant and the same was kept aside.   The applicant was also not received salary for the month of November 2011 as because they deducted an amount of Rs. 12,000/-from the salary of the applicant in arbitrary manner as a result the applicant is facing financial problem.    The applicant further submit that the respondents 4 to 6 are colluded with the bank  and  started  deductions from the salary of the applicant from  NOVEMBER 2011. The respondents 4 to 6 are acting as recovery agents and making deductions from the salary not only the applicant’s salary but also from other employee’s salary accounts.  The applicant further submit that, the respondents 3 to 6 are not entitled to touch the salary of the applicant as there is no order of the court  to attach/deduct  salary of the applicant.      In the present case, there is no such decree for recovery of dues amount due to the bank from the salary of the applicant.  But the respondents 4 to 6 were  recovered/deducted an amount of Rs. 12,000/- from the salary of the applicant and the same was kept aside.   In these circumstances, the applicant has requested the respondents no. 4 to 6 orally not to recover  an amount of rs. 12,000/- orally   and issued a legal Notice dated 10-12-2011 to the respondents 4 to 6 stating that not to make any recovery/deductions from his salary. Even then the respondents 3 to 6 are not ready to pay his salary without making deduction of Rs. 12,000/- from his salary. Therefore, the action of the respondents by making deductions of Rs. 12,000/- for the month of November 2011 from the salary of the applicant without issuing notice is  violative of principle of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary and violating of the article 21 of the Constitution of the India.    Therefore, Prima-facie, balance of convenience in favour of applicant  If  any deductions made from the salary of the applicant as letter dated 05-11-2011 issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad, he  will be put to  irreparable loss and caused prejudice and  hardship. Now the respondents contended that they are not aware of sanctioned loan  to the applicant and none of the parties are informed to the respondents.  The respondents filed a counter contended  that they  have not yet started recovery of the  laon amount  from the salary of the applicant and the applicant himself failed to take his salary and hence , it was remitted back to the treasury.  The Court is of opinion that the bank should approach the civil court and obtain a decree against the applicant for the balance amount due and till such time the respondents should not recovery the amount from his salary and remit tit ti the bank since it si disputed claim only the Civil Court is competent to adjudicate upon it.  However, the respondents have categorically stated that, they have not yet effected recovery from the salary of the applicant as requested by the bank and as such there is no need to give any direction.  For the reasons stated under point no.1 the OA disposed of with a direction to the respondent 3 to 6 not to recover the loan amount of Rs.1,94,173/- from the salary of the applicant by deducting Rs.12,000/- per month, as requested bys the bank as the claim is disputed by the applicant, they are further directed to draw the unclaimed salary of the applicant and pay it to him within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The MA stands closed. The above case was argued by me and obtained orders in favour of the applicant.