The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the orders daled 04112t2023 in crl.M.p trto.sg-30 of 2023 in C.C. No 2772 of 2019 of the fites of The XVI Addt. Judge Cum XX Addt. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including appearance ofihe petitioner in c.c. No 2772 of 2019 of the files of rhe XVI Addr. Judge cum XX Addl. chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. l.A. NO: 10 OF 2024 Petition under section 528 of BNSs praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may . be oleased to extend the interim stay order Ras-s9! on 29 01'2024 in l A No 2 of zo)4. on 12.02.2024i" lAi;'i "iio)a' "l rs 'o3'2o24 in lA No'4 or 2o24' on 27.03.2024 in l.A. No'5'"i"zoi+' t"'22.0!:2:.2! in lA' No6 ot 2024' on lA' No 8 or 2024 and on 1i.07.2024 in l.A No 7 ti'z6ii"'"i toiazolt?t -in 14 10.2024in l.A. No.9 a )o1l'ii'i'::t p' r'ro gas of 2024' until further orders' r.A. NO:1 oF 2024' Petition un(ler Section 482 of Cr'P C prayino that in the circumstances stated in the Merr'orand'#"tt"ro*aJ'oi C'iitin;' Fetition' the High Court may in lA No 02 of be oteased to extond,n",",lr,i'JOy-Jrj", pur."O toi4. on i2to2t2c24i" rA'1.;;i;;'zozi' 'i 1?!9?t?o24 in lA No 04 ot 2o24' on '"i ioz+'-"i'zzto1t7971 in lA No 06 ot 2024' on 27t03t2024 in lA No os lonanozq in lA No 08 of 2024' on 11107t2024 in lA No o' Zt 707i" 14t1ol2o24in lA I\o oS oti'oZTZnO o" Zrlr 1120.24-in lA No 10 of 2024 in Cd P N; ;;;; )oza,'untir furttrei orders in the interest of justice' t.A. NO: 2 oF 2025 ,on2910112024 -o'n Between: Srinivas Raghtrnathan, S/o P'A' Srinivasan' aged€bout 81 years' Occ Business' R/o.10-5-81-6/,A, 1 uxaramgate"i'6;A;;t Niagir' Secunderabad' ...Petitioner/RespondenUComplainant AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep' by its Public Prosecutor' 'effiffitl';n:;}-,q*.ii[frr$ii!ii,,,ffi {il$lr;*'ffi Pi'ot No'gst,' Road No'l "'Respondents/Petitioner/Accused petition u rder Section 528 of BNSS pr."yill that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand';;;;';;t oiCtil.nin"r.Fetition' the High Court may of f"t'"t proceedings passed in be pleased to vacate ;;"" ;;;;;G crlp .no .949 12025 . ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of Crirninal p"titlon tna upon hearing the arguments of Mr' Rajesh Maddy, Advocate tor tne- petitioner and the Sri M' Ramachandra Reddy' Additional Publi<; Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No"l and of Sri Kunda Sunil Goud, Advocate for the Respondent No' 2' CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 955 OF 2024 Between: Myakala Venugopal, S/o.M.Balraj, aged about 58 years, Occ. Managing Director, M/s. Shiv Shakti Traders Private Limited, 2-9-180/100, Bharatnagar, Chikanagar Road, Uppal, Hyderabad-39 Proprietor of M/s. Shiv Shakti Agency, 3-7118, Samathapuri Colony, Kothapet, New Nagole, Hyderabad-35, Plot No.95W, Road No.5, Commercial Tax Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner/Accused AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Hyderabad. 2. Srinivas Raghunathan, S/o. P.A. Srinivasan, aged about 81 years, Occ. Business, R/o .'l 0-5-81-6/A, Tukaramgate, Nandanar Nagar, Secunderabad. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the orders dated 0411212023 in Crl.M.P No.3604 of 2023 in C.C. No 2772 oI 2019 of the files of The XVI Addl. Judge Cum XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praylng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including appearance of the Petitioner in C.C. No 2772 of 2019 of the files of The XVI Addl. Judge Cum XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. LA. NO: I OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay order passed on 29.01 .2024 in l.A. No. 1 of 2024, on 12.02.2024 in l.A. No.2 ol 2024, on 15.O3.2024 in l.A. No.3 of 2024, on 27.03.2024 in l.A. No.4 ot 2024, on 22.04.2024 in l.A.No.S of 2024, on 11.07.2024 in l.A. No.6 of 2024, on 30.O8.2024 in l.A. No.7 of 2024 and on 14.1O.2024 in lA No.8 of 2O24 in Crl P. No. 955 ol 2O24, until further orders. l.A. NO: 4OF 2025 Between: Srinivas Raghunathan, S/o. P.A. Srinivasan, aged about 8'l years, Occ. Business, R/o .1 0-5-81-6/4, Tukaramgate, Nandanar Nagar, Secunderabad ...Petitioner/RespondenUComplainant AND '1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Hyderabad. 2. Myakala Venugopal, S/o.M.Balraj, aged about 58 years, Occ. Managing Director, M/s. Shiv Shakti Traders Private Limited, 2-9-180/100, Bharatnagar, Chikana,lar Road, Uppal, Hyderabad-39 Proprietor of M/s. Shiv Shakti Agency, 3-7118, Samathapuri Colony, Kothapet, New Nagole, Hyderabad-35, Plot No.{)SW, Road No.5, Commercial Tax Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Petitioners/Accused Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the stay orders of further proceedings passed in crlp.no.955 ol 2025. l.A. NO: 11 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to -'xtend the interim stay order passed on 04.12.2025 until further orders. This Pet tion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Cr minal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Rajesh Maddy, Advoc:rte for the Petitloner and the Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Kunda Sunil Goud, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.949 and 955 ot 2024 1sIH DECEMBER, 2025 Between: Myakala Venugopal. Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Rep. through Public Prosecutor and 1 other Respondents COMMONORDER: Since, the parties in both the petitions are one and the same, these petitions are disposed of by way of common order

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed to quash the common order dated 04.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.Nos.3930 and 3604 ot 2023 in C.C.No.2772 of 2019 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge cum XX Additional Chief l\Ietropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court at Secunderabad (for short, "the trial Court"), whereby the petition filed under section 242(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 145(2) of N.l.Act to receive the documents and to recall and reopen the evidence of PW2 to mark the alleged documents and the same was allowed by the trial Court. 2 \r-

3. Heard Mr.Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Kunda Sunil Goud, l,:arned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learnel Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.

4. During the course of submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has failed to notice that the application filed under sr:ction 242(2\ Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as admittedly the complaint is rot a police complaint. The trial Court failed to notice that the present petiticn is filed only to protract and drag the case without reaching finality. The trial Court failed to consider the counter filed by the petitioner/accused and allowed the applications filed by the complainant. The trial Court ought to have dismissed the applications as the documents sought to be marked are irrelevant and immaterial and have nothing to do with the present case. l-lence, prayed to allow the crintinal petitions.

5. Lerarned counsel for the respondent No-2 submits that there is no prejudice caused even if the criminal petitions are allowed for receiving and to recall and reopen the evidence of PW2 to mark the alleged documents to establish the fzrctual aspects. Hence, prayed to dismiss the criminal petitions.

6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is facing trial for offenc,? punishable under Negotiable lnstruments Act. Further, it is essential in an offence of Negotiable lnstruments Act to establish the case of the complainant through documents. Therefore, the complainant filed petitions f I , I : : 3 for receive documents, to recall and reopen the evidence of PW2 to mark the alleged documents and the trial Court also allowed the said petitions. ln view of the above observation, this Court opines that no interference is required in this matter since the trial Court has rightly allowed the petitions of receive documents as well as to recall and reopen the evidence of PW2 to mark the alleged documents. However, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, even if the PW2 is re-examined and the learned counsel for the petitioner will have ample opportunity to cross examine the PW2. Therefore, the learned trial Court is directed;to.;fix a specific date for re-examination for marking of ,. . , i documents and both the parties and their counsel shall cooperate by { appearing on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court without any delay and conclude the same. lt is made clear that if the re-examination of PW2 is not completecl on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court, this order stands vacated automatically.

7. With the above directions, these Criminal Petitions are disposed closed 40, As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand SD/- K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// 1 The XVI Addl. Judge cum - Magistrate, CitY Civil Court ; Two CCs to the Public Pros Buildings, at HYderabad (OUT) 2 XX Addl. Chief MetroPolitan at Secunderabad. ecutor, State of Telangana, High Court

3. one ccto tr/r. Rajesh tMaddy, Advocate [oPUC] i One CC to Sri Kunda Sunil Goud, Advocate IOPUC] s. Two CD CoPies /W DL/PSL / -1 HIGH COURT DATED:1511212025 COMMON ORDER , t ( lHE S 6 2 0 [[8 2t]Zd Z * Sp..l. rcri o * CRLP.Nos.949 and 955 of 2024