The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. K. Annapurna, W/o Sri K. Satlapa] Goud, Aged about44 years' Occ' - i;il;;, ;"d Swimmihg Trainer, Rlo Flattlo 42, singamitra Arcade' near gaawi earOen Funciion Hall, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad .....RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT PetitionunderSection52BofBNSSpiayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may O" pf"u."O to quash order dated 0g.12 2024 made in Crl M'P No 609 of 2024 in ciri npp"rr ub.zz ot 2023 on the fite of the principal District Judge at Nizamabad, in consequence direct the Appellate court to receive additional documents as sought for l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 petition under section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Ciiminal Petition, the High Court may be pi"r."O io gru"t stay all further proceedings in.Crl' Appeal No 22 of 2023 on the nf" of tfr" piincipal tii.tri"t Jrdg. at,Nizamabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumofGrounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sRl SHAIKH AHMED ALI representing sri MIRZA NISAR AHMED BAIG ,Advocate for the Petitioner and thc SRI. JITHENDER'RAO VEERAMALLA' AdditiONAI PUbIiC PTOSCCUTOT ON behalfoftheRespondentNo.landofSriD.RAGHAVULUAdvocateforthe Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION N o.1516 0F 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.p.C.') witha prayer to quash the order dated 09.12.2024 in Crl.lV.P.No. 609 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2023 on the file of the learned principal District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. Heard Ir/r.Shaikh Ahmed Ali, learned counsel, representing Mr.Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig Nizami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State

3. The petitioner/appellant is accused in C.C.No.435 of 2009 and was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1g81, on

19.04.2023 Aggrieved thereby, he preferred Criminal Appeal No.22 of

2023. Pending appeal, the petitioner has fired Miscellaneous petition vide Crl.M.P.No.60 9 of 2024 under Section 39 1 of Cr.p.C., to receive the chief examination of PW-1 in o.s.No.78 of 2007 on the file of the senior civil Judge, Nizamabad and the same was dismissed by the Court below yrde ,the impugned order. Thus, present petition. 2 ,\-IR,TI Cr/.P.No. 1516 af 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the documents, which are intended to bring on record, are very much related to facts in issue before the appellate court and it establishes the fact that evenbeforetheagreedperiod,thecomplainthasbeenfiledfor prosecution and this fact reflects mala fides on the part of the respondent No.2/complainant. Further, there are other contradictions in the statement of the witnesses in the cross-examination in calendar case proceedings. Therefore, the appellate Court ought to have received these documents to determine the Criminal Appeal on merits' ln support of his contention, learned counsel has placed the 5. authorities between N.Somi Reddy and another v. Sfafe of A,.P. and othersl and K.Nagesh v. State ofTelangina2'

6. I have perused the materials on record lt is settled proposition that filing of additional evidence at the stage

7. of appeal under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. is not a matter of course, the petitioner is bound to explain that in spite of due diligence he could not SecurethedocumentsorplacethematerialsbeforethetrialCourt.

8. on this aspect, the petitioner,S Stand is that due to inadvertence of the counsel before the trial court, necessary steps were not taken. Be i (2) ALD (cRD 406 J 1 Crimes (HC) 562 3 NrR,/ Ctl.PNo. 15t6 o1 2025 that as it may, the other essentiar aspect required for consideration whether bringing this document will sub-serve the justice IS

9. As per the petitioner, the essential aspect to be considered is that the respondent No,2/comprainant has instituted the compraint within the agreed period of one year from the date of impugned cheque. By this statement, issuance of cheque by the petitioner rs not in dispute. It is pertinent to note that, admittedly, the respondent No.2/complainant has been examined as witness and the aspect of firing compraint within the admitted period, is not put the witness in cross-examination. That apart, no legar provision has been set out to show that even if there is understanding, the comprainant cannot prosecute the remedies untir the period in the understanding completes That being the position, the petitioner claiming that the document rs essential to determine the essential aspect in the Criminal Appeal is found unconvincing 10' That apart, the triar court has righry observed that the depositions of the civir suit cannot be direcry marked in the proceedings and read in evidence whire determining the Appear without confronting the witness. Furthermore, there is no explanation from the petitioner as to why these documents courd not be praced at appropriate stage before the triar court. , 4 NTRJ Ct/.P.No. 1516 oJ2025

11. For the aforesaid, this Cou( finds no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, as such, this petition lacks any tenable ground for consideration, much less for admission

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is liable to be and is accordingly, dismissed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. U.SUDHA STANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, ilfi+"s;i"s#Til#S:adilfff tf :'fl :{f, ['!r"15rPr"Y'?n""" *SZat:t*PB'Ioonou'LU Advocate toPUCl ^ 5. Two GD CoPies 4+ PSL Ilrl\ I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I l l HIGH COURT DATED:1110312O25 ORDER CRLP.No.1516 ot 2025 t. 1H sre t: ,l( J t/ I I r 2 g rttg 2oz5 t a So411r.:.' DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION I A- 7 L i I I I ! i I I I I , , i I I ' I , i : , : . I ,