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 stay all further proceedings in C.C.Nl.No.1283 ol 2021 on the file of Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad. ':,trf 7 Criminal Petition No: 3499 of 2 025 Between: Krishna.Prasad Potluri, S/o. P.V. Satyanarayana, Age 55 Years, Occ: Business, R/o- H.No.7-1-300. Balkampet, S.R..Nagar, Hyderabad-38 AND ...Petit oner/Accused 1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad 2 M/s. Quantum Build Tech Ltd, A Company registered under Companies Act. Rep. by Managing Director, G. Satyanarayana S/o. G. Venkataratnam, Age 74 years, Occ: Business, Office at B-1-405/tu66 Dream Valley, Shaikpet Hyderabad ... Responc ent/Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in thi: circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the, High Court may be pleased to set aside quash the common order dated 21-01-2025 passed in crl.M.P.No.2B of 2025 in c c.Nl.No.1283 of 2021 on the ''ite of the Vill Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Manoranjan Complex, Hydera cad, by allowing the petition in the interest of Justice. 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 Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in c.c.Nl.No.12B3 of zo21 on the file of vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex. Hyderabad. Criminal Pet ion No: 3517 of 2025 Between: Krishn-a. Prasad Potlu ri, S/o. P.V. Satyanarayana, Age 55 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.7-1-300, Balkampet, S.R..Nagar, Hyderabad-38 AND ... Petitioner/Accused

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

2. M/s. Quantum Build Tech Ltd, A Company registered under Companies Act Rep. by Managing Director, G. Satyanarayana S/o. G. Venkataratnam, Age 74 years, Occ: Business, Office at 8-1-405/4/66 Dream Valley, Shaikpet Hyderabad Respo nd enUC om p laina nt Petition under Section 437143814391482 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 set aside quash the common order dated 21-01-2025 passed in crl.M.P.No.29 of 2025 in c.c.Nl.No.12B3 of 2021 on the file of the Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranian Complex, Hyderabad. LA. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in c.c.Nl.No.1283 of 2021 on the file of the Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.N. Somendra Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.and of Sri K.Siddharth Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. S|UJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1789, 3499 and 3t517 of ZO2S COMMON ORDER: Since a common issue arises in all these criminal petitions, they are being taken up for disposal together b;r wa5, of this common order.

2. Crl.P.No.1789 of 2025 is hled seeking to ser aside the order dated 21.O1 .2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.30 of 2O2S in C.C.NI.No.1283 of 2021 by the learned VIlt Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

3. Crl.P.No.3499 of 2025 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 21.O1.2025 passed in Crl.M.p.No.28 of 2O2S in C.C.NI.No. 1283 of 2O2l by the learned VIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

4. Crl.P.No.3517 of 2025 is filed seeking to ser aside the order dated 21 .O1.2025 passed in Cr1.M.p.No.29 of 2O2S in C.C.NI.No.1283 of 2O2l by the learned VIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad. 2 sKs,J Ctl.P.Nos,l7E9 of 2O25 and batch

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a pelition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall DWl and reopen his evidence for the limited purpose of marking certain documents, namely (i) the Articles of Association of the complainant-Company and (ii) Form DPT-3 dated 28.06.2019 along with its attachments Iiled on the MCA website. The petitioner contended that the said documents are crucial for a just adjudication of the case ald was not previously hled as they were not in his possession. It was further submitted that the complainant/ respondent had no authority under its Articles of Association to lend money, and that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to lend, having been declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by Axis Bank prior to 2017. The petitioner argued that the cheque in quesLion was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt but only as a mediatory arrangement to facilitate transfer of funds from the complainant to NECX Pvt. Ltd.

6. On the other hand, the respondent/ complainant filed a counter denying the averments, contending that the petitioner remained silent ever since the cross-examination of PW1 and that the present petitions were filed belatedly only after the closure of defence evidence and complainant's arguments, thereby intending to delay the Proceedings. I I 3 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.1789 of 2025 aad batch

7. The trial court, upon hearing both sides ar:d examining the record, noted that the petitioner had already deposed as DWl and admitted in his chief examination that the amoLrnl of Rs. 1 crore was transferred from the complainant,s bank lccount to p. R. Consultancies, and thereafter from p. R. Consult.ancies to NECX Pvt. Ltd., as per an understanding. Thus, the transfer of funds was not in dispute. The court observed that in vir:w of its order in Cr1.M.P.No.3O of 2025, dismissing the petition to receive the said documents as secondary evidence, there was no justification to recall DW1 or reopen his evidence. Accordingll, rhe trial court dismissed the petitions, holding that the documer rts sought to be marked were irrelevant for the just decision of t -ie cerse and no prejudice would be caused by their exclusion. Agqrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petitions.

8. Heard Sri N. N. Somendra Reddy, learned co,rnsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivel:a:randa Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l - State and Sri K. Siddarth Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

9. karned counsel for the petitioner submifl ed that the impugned orders of the trial Court are illegal, contrzrry to law, and 4 sI{s,J Crl.P. oo.1789 of2025 and batch unjustifrable, and are liable to be set aside and that the trial Court faiied to appreciate the defence of the petitioner that he never borrowed any amount from the compiainant company ald that the cheque in question was issued merely as a mediatory instrument to facilitate a fund transfer between the complainant company and NECX Pvt. Ltd. as part of a share-swapping arrangement, and not as a ioan. He further submitted that the petitioner sought to rely on crucial documents such as the Articles of Association and Form DPT-3 iiled on 28.06.2019, which, according to him, would demonstrate that the complainant company lacked both the authorit5r and l-rnancial capacity to lend the alleged amount.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ttre trial Court failed to understand the distinction between a transfer made pursuant to a share-swap agreement and a loan tralsaction and that the denial of the request of the petitioner to recall and reopen the evidence of DW1, and to receive said documents as secondary evidence, has prejudiced the petitioner ald denied him an opportunity to substantiate his defence. The documents sought to be produced form part of the complainant's own corporate record and were suppressed by the complainant to gain wrongful advaltage. The trial court erred in accepting the objection of the complainant that the petitions were filed belatedly with intent to 5 sKs,J Crl.P.Nos. 1789 of 2025 and batch delay the proceedings, without considering that the documents are essential for a just decision. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the trial Court by allowing rhese criminal petitions.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that there is no illegality in the order:; passed by the trial Court. He contended that the petitioner hled the petitions at the fag end of the trial, i.e., at the stage of argurncnts, after the evidence of DW1 had already concluded. The pe titioner failed to produce these documents at an earlier stage, an<J the documents now sought to be hled are in no way helpful to thr. petitioner in discharging the burden or substantiating his contentions. Therefore, the trial Court rightly passed the impug eed orders, and he prayed that the Court dismiss these criminal petitions.

12. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the documents sought to be hled by the peLitioner, namely (i) the Articles of Association of the complainant company and (ii) Form DPT-3 dated 28.06.2019 along with its attachments filed on the MCA website, are sought to be relied upon to support the petitioner's defence. The petitioner specihcalll' referred to 6 SKS,J Crl.P.Itos.1789 of 2025 ead betch Clause No.132 of tJ.e Articles of Association, which pertains to the power to grant loans, and contended that the complainant company was not authorized to lend money to the petitioner. It is the pelitioner's case that if such authority does not exist, the very foundation of the alleged transaction is questionable. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner had already admitted during evidence that the amount was transferred from the complainant company to the accused, and therefore, these documents are irrelevant.

13. However, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage, the relevancy of the documents cannot be conclusively determined. The petitioner is seeking to produce the documents in support of his defence, and whether or not they ultimately prove his case is a matter of appreciation of evidence. The trial Court erred in concluding, at this interlocutory stage, that the documents are irrelevant solely based on the petitioner's admission regarding the transfer of funds. The admissibility, relevance, and evidentiary value of tl-re documents must be left to be decided during the course of trial. As such, the reasoning adopted by the trial Court in dismissing the application liled under Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act in Cr1.M.P.No.3O of 2025 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 7 sxs,J Crl.P.Nos.1789 of 2025 and batch

14. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are allowed, setting aside the common order dated 2I .U .2A'.25 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.28, 29, and 30 of 2025 in C.C.NI.No.l283 of 2021 by the learned VIII Judicial Magistrate of First Clz_ss, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN /ASSISTANT-REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ \ ,J SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri N.N.Somendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the S1:ate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies ***"rrw a', i l HIGH COURT DATED: 1 6/0712025 ) ;i-. i3 ,,'r': "=ii])\,,- . il 3 sEF 2025 , ,,- , :- '' .-:-'-/' lt'-:\' t)/ .j,' \ COMMON ORDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 1789, 3499 & 3517 o't 2025 CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE ALLOWED 4 c\t\ 1