A complainant is not a victim, says HC

HYDERABAD: A division bench of the High Court has held that complainants under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot come under the definition of ‘victim’. The general remedy provided to victims under the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC cannot be extended to them to file an appeal before the sessions court against an order of acquittal in a case arising out of a private complaint, by treating them therein as a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of the Code, the bench noted.

The bench of justices PV Sanjay Kumar and Shameem Akther was answering a reference made by a single judge whether the complainant in a case of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 was a victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of CrPC as amended by the Act No.5 of 2009 with effect from December 31, 2009.

As for the case, the said reference before the bench was the result of an appeal made by P Vijaya Laxmi for quashing of the appeal pending before the sessions court. She questioned the decision of the metropolitan sessions judge of Hyderabad in entertaining an appeal by SP Sravana and another under Section 372 of CrPC against her acquittal by a special magistrate court in a cheque bounce case.

The bench held that though there may be complainants in the cases arising out of private complaint where the accused were ‘charged’, unlike a complaint case arising under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, they still cannot aspire to maintain an appeal against an order of acquittal in such a case under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code. “A complainant is not a ‘victim’ within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code and would stand excluded therefrom by virtue of the fact that the accused in such a case is not subjected to a ‘charge”, the bench noted.

HC allows 2BHK flats construction at Necklace Road

The High Court on Wednesday made it clear that the construction of two-bedroom flats for the poor at Necklace Road in the heart of city can go on but is subject to final orders of the court in the case filed by some people seeking compensation for their lands. Justice A Rajasheker Reddy passed the order while vacating an interim order passed earlier on a petition filed by M Jagannath Singh and others. The petitioners claimed that they were the owners of the land and, without giving them compensation, the government was constructing buildings. 

HC judge recuses himself from Gali case
High Court judge Justice A Shankar Narayana on Wednesday directed court registry to place petition filed by mining baron Gali Janardhan Reddy before another bench after taking required permission from ACJ. He recused himself from hearing the petition challenging order of special court refusing to release gold ornaments seized by CBI in Obulapuram mining case.

Reddy urged HC to issue directions to trial court for release of ornaments. CBI court made it clear that ornaments worth `2.94 crore would not be released till disposal of OMC case wherein it’s alleged that `884-crore ill-gotten money was earned illegally. Reddy then moved HC and filed petitions seeking permission to visit London for his daughter’s wedding anniversary and release of his passport.