High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana.

2. Smt. Madahavi kudapa, Wo K. Gangadhara Rao, Aged 45 years, R/o Flat No.202, Swapnika Pearl, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 pleased to quash by setting aside the order dated 31-12-2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 447 ot 2024 in CC.Nl.No.6192 ot 2022 by the Xll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 'l OF 2025 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 pleased to stay the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in CC-N1.No.6192 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Xll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad. 2 cRtMINA L PET]TIO N NO:37570F 2025 Between: Venkata Rao Gorrepati, q49 gV Subba Rao, R:/o. Flat No Apartment, Naveen Nagar, xhairataoJlnvi.'rl,o"iI sooooa. 5, Sun Rise AND ...PETITIONER/ACC USED relangana, Through its Public Prosecutor, High court of ' #BrtJ:lTf ' i I'r[11t*3 ;f ,fl 'Es;,T',fi I f; n'-xrJ:?:1ffs,."? Ased 4 5 vea rs, R/o F,a t ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section S2g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ; b;iH'p;ition, the High court mav be pleased to quash bv sering. aside the "ru"lO"tJi'ei n2l2\24 passed in Crt.M.p. i;"i:f,,T."ff4jn cc Nr iro 61e2 ;i r0;;il# i,r .r,JLi"r G*;;i;;;'ii^, t.A. NO: 10F 2025 Petition under Section _52g of BNSS praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of.Grounds "ib-ririliirj;tition, the H gh Court may be pleased to stav the oroceedings "g"in.t-th""i;liitiiner/Accuse<t in cc. Nl. No. 3L11"lrl'##Tdins on tne iire oi-tne rlil..*i"iir Luoi"Lr-l.,,"gi.,,."J" Li .,)o These petitions are 3oming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon ;;J;g the argurnents of sri H SUDHAKARA RAO, Advocate for the peiitioner in both cases and sri Jithender Rao veerama'a, the Additionar pubric prosecutor on oehalf of the Respondent No.'l and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 in both cases. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITtoNNos.3756a nd 3757 of 2025 COMM ON ORDER; Crl.p.No.37S6 of 2O2S is filed assailing the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in Crt.M.p.No.44t of 2OZ4 in C.C.Nt.No.6192 of 2022, wherein respondent No.2/petitioner/complainant filed a petition to receive document Nos.(i) to (iii) in order to record. Crl.p.No.3757 of 2O2S is filed challenging the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.p.No.44B of 2024 in C.C.Nt.No.6192 of 2022, wherein the respondent No.2/petitioner/complainant filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.p.C. to recall pW_1 for marking the documents as additional exhibits.

3. Heard Ms.pujyam Sai Sri learned counsel, representing Mr.G.Venkata Rao, leamed counsel for petitioner, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional public prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The trial Court, having considered the submissions, allowed the petitions of receiving the documents and recalling the pw-I, without costs' Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/respondenu accused prefened petitions for quashment of these orders. 2 5' Learned counser for the petitioner submits that the triar court, without considering the aspect of rerevancy, had aflowed the petitions. He further asserts that the documents were pertained to proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (for short ,NCLT,), and the parties therein are distinct from the parties in the carendar case. Furthermore, the respondent No.2/complainant before the NCLT has claimed the amount in question and is arso prosecuting the carendar case under Section 13g of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, iggl, as such untenably working out remedies parallelly. Further, though the calendar case is pending since 201g, the petition has been filed at a belated stage, and therefore, receiving the documents or recalling the witnesses for marking them would be unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 6 I have perused the materials on record.

7. The documents intended to be filed are of the year 2021 . Admittedly, the proceedings in the calendar case are pending for further evidence of the respondent No.2/complainant. For these reasons, the contention of belated filing is not appealing. Further, at the stage of receiving documents, determining the relevancy or veracity may not be required and considering the pleadings and on prima facie observation, the triar court may receive the documents. However, as righfly observed in the impugned order, receiving of 3 documents would not cause any prejudice or hardship as taking the documents on to evidence would be subject to cross-examination by the petitioner/accused. As such no impropriety is found in receiving of documents subject to proof and relevance. Correspondingly, to bring the received documents into evidence, seeking and ordering recall of PW-1 is perfectly justified. L For these reasons, in the absence of any illegality or perversity in recording conclusion, this Court finds no tenable reason for interference. Nonetheless, the petitioner may raise the aspects of relevancy and admissability of the documents, on presentment to receive.in evidence.

9. With this observation and in the absence of merit, both the Criminal Petitions are liable to be and are accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. /TTRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DE UTY REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad. 2. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) in both cases

3. One CC to SRI H SUDHAKARA RAO Advocate [OPUC] in both cases- 4. Two CD Copies Tpk/gh HIGH COURT DATED: 1910312025 lil STA} e' \1 a i) t:.) 10 luN a Drt ORDER CRLP.No.3756 of 2025 and CRLP.No.3757 of 2O2S CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED f6* X4n1.f \