The High Court · 2025

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support oi tt'" p"iiti*' t19 HlS! Court may be pleased suspend the Docket oro.r'p^t"J ln cc Nr'Ho sbzs or 2022' dl10-o4-2023 (wrongty Date Mentioneo J.-ioo+ zo22) on the file of the court of the Vlll irr"ii"p",iit". rtragistrate nt riyOeraoao p"nding disposal of CRLP 4127 ol 2023' on the file of the High Court IA NO: 't oF 2023 ^to Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl ot the petition, tne Higtr-c^ourt may be plea-sed to grant stav of ail further proceedi"g".'i; C6 Ni.NCi. SOZSbf 2O22 on the file of the court of Rl Hvoeraoad pending disposal of of CRLP 4127 of ii:'vji' tt"i,"p"iltl'" 2023, on the file of the High Court' -rt/lrgi.tirte This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum. of Grounds of Criminal petitlon anO upon" f'"iring the arguments of Sri ,Venkat Prasad Ukkalam, Advocateiotin" q&ition"tt utio tht of Sri E Ganesh' learned utr''it of the Respondent No l and Sri Akshath Asst. Public Prosecutor gbi Sanghi, learned counsel t#t"t""ii"g Sri Sharad Sanghi Learned counsel for r the respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER "" : e r' THE HON OURAB LE SRI JUSTICE E.v. vENUGOPAL CRIIIIINAL PETITIO N No.4127 of 2O23 ORDER This Criminal petition is filed under Section 48.2 of Code of Criminal procedure (for short, .Cr.p.CJ by the petitioners/zrccused, seeking to quash the Docket orcler dated 10.O4.2023 (wrongly typed as Date 10.O4.20221 2022 passed by the learned 1n C.C.NLNo.9079 of VIII Metropolir an Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, Court'). 'the trial

2. Heard l--zrned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.E.,Ganesh, learned Assistent public prosecutor for respondent No.1_State and Mr.Akshrrth Sanghi, learned counsel Mr.Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the No.2/complain:mt. perused the record. representing respondent

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accu sed submitted that C.C.No.B0 of 2016, is renumbered as C.C.NI.No.9O79 of 2022 and tht: same is transferred from the court of the II Additiona,l Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad to VII Metropoli -an Magistrate Court, Hyderabacl. I ,1 2 It is further submitted that the petitioners herein filed a 4 petition in Crl.M.P.No. 1485 of 2023, in C.C'NI.No.9079 of. crte.tt"'enz "ffi{ 2022 (old. C.C.No.SO of 2016) under Section 3O9 of Cr'P'C praying the trial Court to grant adjournment on 1O-O4-2O23 to any other day and the trial Court has tismissed the said Cr1.M.P.No.1485 of 2023 and passed a separate order as below: "Cross Exa.mination: Further Cross Examination of PW7 closed uiero oJ ord.ers in Crt.M.P-No-7485/2O23' At this stage the learned. counsel Jor accused put a question to PWI as to uhether he gaoe ang letter of authoritg to his Adaocate to issue statutory legdl notice to the a;ccused. Ollection roised in resPect oi iffelevaftt question at this stage, Further Ctoss Exa',aination oJ PW7 'I.ot commenced. Further Cross Exalmination of PttrI1 closed in view of orders in Crl.M.P.No. 14aS I 2023".

5. He further submitted that the trial Court grossly erred in closing the cross examination of PW-l on the ground that the Crl.M.P.No.1485 of 2023 filed by the petitioner/accused herein seeking adjournment of the case is dismissed'

6. He further submitted that the trail court erred while passing the impugned order and completely ignored the fact that the petitioner/accused herein genuinely sought adjournment of the case owing to the reason that the Seqipr I I ! 3 EW,J Crl.P.No.412Z o.f 2O2g at Supreme Counsel of the petitioner/accused was held up Court and erred in forming an opinion that the question proposed b'r the Junior counsel of the petitioner is irrelevant at that sta.ge r 6f the case and the trial Court should have allowed the J,rnior counsel to put the questions to the witness and ought to have recorded the answer of the witness instead of terming the question as irrelevant. j

7. He furtl er submitted that if further Cross Examination is not a-llou.ed the accused right to Cross Examine pW_1 would be lost ard it will be against the principle of fair trial which the accused is entitled for as per the Criminal Jurisp rudence, as such he seel<s to allow the petition.

8. On the c,ther hand, learned counsel for respor:dent No.2 contended t hrtt despite giving opportunities, peritioner is dragging the ,:rLse- He further contended that statuton. provision has been comptied, which reads as follows: Section 73ap) tn the Negotiable Instruments Act, 7Bg1 (b)the payee or the hold.er out course of the cheque' as the c.,se m.4U be, makes o o,'n ::"u:t o f mo nes un n r*,,1 TT!rr{!', :T^ir:t:::'r;{ ;f_::,i the cheque, utthin thirt! d.ags of tn" .ecapi'oj-inji..rnotion og ,i. .L.iir-.' ,s unpqid; :2t""^ the bo.nk resard.ing the return "f :!- 4 EW,J crl.P.No.4127 of 2023 .. He further contended that the learned counsel for the accused posed a question to PW 1 before the trial Court, stating that whether he gave any letter of authority to his Advocate to issue Statutory legal notice to the accused, for which the tria-l Court rightly opined that the objection raised by the learned counsel for the accused was irrelevant question. Accordingly, the trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentar5r evidence in proper perspective, rightly passed the impugned order and interferencd of this Court is unwarranted. He, therefore, seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

9. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the case has been adjourned number of times for cross-examination of PWl, in spite of giving ample opportunities by the trial Court, the petitioner herein did not choose to complete the cross- examination of PW1 ald causing inordinate delay in adjudicating the case. Hence, this Court has no reason to interfere with the impugn ed order passed by the trial Court. ,/ I 5 EW., Crl.P.No.4127 oJ 2O2B Therefore, th s Criminal petition is devoid of merit,s and the same is liab[e to be dismissed lO. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shail also stand closed //TRUE COPY// To, ASStST4N Sd/. N. SRIHARI T REGISTRAR \_----\- 5Ec TION OFFICER

1. The ll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court Hyderabad 2. The Vlll lvtetro tolitan Magistrate, NampallyAt Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri Venkat Prasad Ukkalam , Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two ccs to P JBLrc pRosEcuroR, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD copies B.ILB/gh ,',-:,. . *.\ HIGH COURT DATED:1010212025 ORDER CRLP.No.4127 of 21t23 '-l ...- f, CRIMINAL PETITIOTI IS DISMISSED l /.: - ( z .P I iIAI 2W '^,, ?r. tr rcHEC * I {