The High Court · 2025

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONOENTS petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C & Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quastl the order dated' 04-03-2025 in Crl.M.i.No.O4 ot ZO2S in Crl.A.No.1295 ot 2017 on the file of Xll Additional Di"tri"t Jrdg", Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar by allowing the crl.M.P.No.O4 of 2023 as praYed for. MO petition under Section 482 of cr.P.c & 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Mdmorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the rfigh Corrt may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Crl.A.No.1295 of ZOll on the file ot ilt Rdditional bistrict Jr.rdge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B- Nagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E. Sreenivas Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Cudic prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri P. Ravi Shanker, Advocate for the ResPondent No.l . 'it V. Aruna, Wo Anja neyulu, Age: 52 years; Housewife , R/o Flat No. 302 H.No.17- 1-391/5/440, Annapurna Arcade, Singareni Colony , Saidabad, Hyderabad. ER'APPELLANT'ACCUSED 1. Gundla Venkat Reddy, S/o G. Ram Reddy , Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-9-582, Plot No. 17 Mnayaka nagar Colony, Reddy District. 3 :l

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad. Ranga Petition under section 4g2 0f cr-p-c & Section 52g of B.N.s.s praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memora,o^ or b.rnds of criminar petition, llrg - IiSlr. C-ourr may be pteased to qrr"t, itre order deted 04_03_2025 in crl.M.P.No.04 ot 2023 in bd.A.No.l2sd ot zoi'i on the fire of Xil Additionar Pi:tli:! -Judg-e, Ranga Reddy District ar L.B.- Nagar Oy allowing the said Crl.M.P.No.67 of 2O24 as prayed for. 'l oF Petition under Section 492 ot Cr.p.C & Sectior t#3;*,ll?,Jlfl,liil in the circumstir""" .t-"t"a in the Memora;il; L:"':""ot lllgltist' court may be preased to.stay arr rr.tn.i pio"u.oings in crr.A-No.129s of 2017 on the fite of Xil Additionat District .lra!"i nrng" Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memor€ndum of Grounds of criminar petition .and upon t e""ii.,f,ine lrgument" of sri E. sreenivas Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and tt'e sn: iri. vivitananoi neooy, n."i"i"rt Public Prosecutor on beharfof.the Respondent iio) and of sri p. Ravi shanker, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. The Court made the foflowing: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL IIos.4778 end 4779 COMMON ORDER: Since a common issue arises in these criminal petitions, they are being taken up for disposal together by way of this common order.

2. Crl.P.No.4778 of- 2025 is filed seeking to set aside the order dared 04.o3.2o25 passed in cr1.M.P.No.04 of 2023 in Crl.A.No. l2g:J of 2Ol7 by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy DisLrict at L.B. Nagar'

3. Crt.P.No.4779 of 2025 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 04.o3.2025 passed in cr1.M.P.No.67 of 2024 in Crl.A.No. l2g1 of 2017 by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and Sessions at L.B. Nagar

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed petitions under Sections 391 and 242(21 of cr.P.c. seeking to receive the notice dated 04..05.2015 issued to D. Ram Reddy and to take additional evidence. The petitioner contended that she filed criminal appeal against the judgment dated 09.i1.2017 passed in Crl.P.lrlos.4z? g aoil 4TZ9"r"#i c'c'No'246 0f 2016 by the leafned Speciar Magistrate a; Hayathnagar, wherein she was convicted for the offence punishabre under section r3g of Negotiabre Instruments Act, 1gg1 (for short, NI Act). It is further stated that petitioner arong with her husband obtained a hand loan from one D. Ram Reddy for a tune of Rs'5o,oo,ooo/- on L5.o6.2o14 and in respect of the same, a Mernorandum of Understanding was executed between the parties, which was already marked as Ex.D 2 andfurther the petitioner and her husband in pursuance of the said Memorandum of un<ierstanding, issued s cheques each in total r 0 cheques to D' Ram Reddy. The subject matter cheque in the present case is one of the cheques issued by the petitioner to D. Ram Red.dy. It is further stated that the petitioner has already paid totar loan irnount along u,ith interest to o. n"* Reddy, but he withheld the cheque without returning it to the petitioner and by suppressing the material facts l,ed the compraint case through G. venkat Reddy 5' It is further submitted that the petitioner has arso fired a criminal case against the above said persons for the illegar acts and have already issuecr reply notices to thc cou*ser for respondent along with copy to respondent, cautioning not to misuse the promissory notes and cheques and further directed to return them \ b- ) I i { i 3 sKS,J Crl.P.ltos.477E el'lil 4779 of 2O2S without misuse. Later the Petitioner also got issued a notice to D' RamReddyon04.os.2o15,butthesamewasreturnedunclaimed. Due to oversight, the said notice was not marked in support of her case in the trial court which is very crucial document to decide the case, as such requested the court to receive the same as additional evidence at the aPPellate stage'

6.Ontheotherhand,therespondentthereinfiledacounter denyingthepetitionavermentsandrequestedthecourttodismiss the petitions.

7. The trial collrt, upon hearing both sides' observed that there is delay of about O7 years in filing the petitions and the said document could not be produced before the trial court and failed to explainproperreasonsforinordinatedelayinfilingthepetitions with cogent and. corroborative evidence. Accordingly' the trial courtdismissedthepetitions,holdingt}ratevenifthesaid document is received in appellate court' no purpose would be served except wasting va'luable time of the court and the complainant. Aggrieved thereby' petitioner filed the present criminal Petitions. q /* 4 crl.P.Iyos.4zz8 anit 4729.r"[?g 8' Heard sri E. Sreenivas Reddy, learned counser appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public prosecutoi appearing on beharf of respondent No.2 - State and sri p.Ravi shanker, learned counser appearing on behalf of respondent No- l. 9' Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court failed t- consider that the petitioner along u,ith her husband borron'ed hand loan from one D. Ram Reddy and in respect of the sarnF fho-o ..,^ between them which was marked as Ex.D2 and both the petitioner and her husband issued 10 cheques (each 5) to D. Rarn Reddy and one among thclse cheques is the subject matter of c.c.No .246 of 2016' He further submittcd that the trial court failed to consider that the petitioner and her husband already paid to&rr amount along with the interest to the D. Ram Reddy but he dici not return the cheque and by suppressing the material facts filed the c.c. through respondent. 10' Learned counser for the petitioner contended that the petitioner already issued a repl.y notice to the respondent No.1 not to misuse the cheque and promissory note, but the same was unclaimed and due to oversight, the sarrle was not marked in the * 5 SKS,J Crl.P.IIos.4778 arld,4779 of 2o25 C.C. to support the case of petitioner and the notice dated

04.05.2015 is a crucial and relevant document to prove that D.Ram Reddy got misused the cheque and filed complaint. Therefore, he prayed the Court to consider the evidence at appellate stage by setting aside the order of trial Court by allowing these criminal petitions.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.l submitted that petitioner filed the petitions at the appellate stage and non- marking of the alleged notice have any bearing on the judgment and the question of relevancy of the said document to the present case does not arise at all and the said Memorandum of Understanding itself is not believed by the trial Court as the respondent No.l is not a party to the said Memorandum of Understanding. The present petitions filed to receive the notice dated O4.O5.2O15 does not arise that too after lapse of 8 years and no explanation was given by the petitioner for non- marking of the said document before the trial Court except inadvertence. Though appeal is filed in the year 2017, the present petitions are filed after seven years. As such, thre trial Court rightly passed the orders, and prayed the Court to dismiss these criminal petitions. 5 sxs,J Crl.P.trtos.4778 trrd,47?9 oI 2O2S L2- In the light of the submissions made by both the learned cotnsel and upon perusal of the ..r.t..irr available on record, the contention of petitioner is that notice dated o4.os.2015 issued to D-Ram Reddy for return of the cheque urhich is unclaimed is a crucial document. The petitioner and her husband have already paid the cheque amount to Ram Reddy. The docurnent is dated o4-o5.2o15, the c.c. is of the year 2oL6, and petitioner was convicted 09.11 .2orr for the offence under section r 3g cf NI Act. Aggrieved by the said conviction, petitioner filed appeai i. the year 2ol7 and the present petitions are filed in the year 2o23. There is no ground mentioned in the petition as to why this document rvas not filed before the trial court, though the document is of the year 201.5 except stating inadvertence the present petitions are filed at the appellate stage, the petitioner has to give sufficie.t reaso.s that inspite of due diligence she coulcl not lile the said document before the trial Court.

13. At this stage, it is relevant to extract Section 391 cr.p.c, which reads as under: "391- Appellate court mag take further euid.ence or direct it to be taken.-(l) ln dealing utith angl app"ol under this Ciapter, the Appella'te. lourt, if tt thinks ..dkndiiat euidcnce to be nlcr.ssarv, shall record ifs reasons and mag eitrrcr toke such evidence itsetf, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate o., when the Appelate court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate. ' \ \ 7 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.4778 and 4779 of 2ol25 -i;-;; ";";h (2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session -such evidengg to the he shall tt'iirv or the Magistrate, court shali thereupon proceed to Appellate court, ;; dispose of the aPPeal' (3r rhe accused or his preader shafl have the right to be present ;il (a) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the ;;.;;;";" ortn"pttt xxIII' as if it were an inquiry' the additional evidence is taken'

14.Comingtothepresentcase'itisnotthecaseofpetitioner thatthesaiddocumentcameintoexistencerecentlyandthatit wasnotinherpossessionattheStageoftrialoratthetimeoffrling ofappeal.Therearenosufficientgroundsshownbythepetitioner forreceivingthesaiddocumentafteralapseofabouto8years.As such there is no illegality in the orders passed by the trial court andtherearenomeritsinthesecriminalpetitionsandtheSame are liable to be dismissed'

15. Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are dismissed Miscellaneous petitions, pendine' if anv- shall stand clnserl sd,- S. ASSIST ANT RAO / ,,TRUE COPY'I SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. The Xll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar rwo ccs to the pu;-rc Fio"u"-rtor, lli;; ii'ii'-' it';Ai" of relansana at Reddy' Advocate Igiuct 3[ 33 [ $'I ;";ruffikd dd;;i; tcjFuct Hvderabad' to'-Lr"enivas

3. 4 5. Two CD ,ncl T CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:1710712025 I ORDER CRLP.Nos.4778 and 4l7g of 2025 r HE S14 r4r ((. ( o o t 2t t0ll XE * o,6S PA.TCH cJ) + DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ,dd 6 S.,