Hyderabad High Court · 2025

M/s Smart Watts Energy lndia Private Ltd.,, Located at D.No. 13-64341C1146, Ring Road, Maruthinagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Pabbati Vr.lay Kumar Sio Devadanam. ..RESPONDENTS/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 is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 21 01 2025 in CRL MP. 7143 of 2023 in C.C. N.l. No. 14251 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad and consequently allow the same for further cross examination of PW-2. 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 For the reasons slated rn the accompanying grounds, it is prayed that pending the above case, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedrngs in C.C N I No. 14251 of 2022, on the file of the Court of the Vlll Judicial Nlagistrate of First Class, Hyderabad. 7 This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusin E the Memorandum of ^ Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the argur.ents or sri CH, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri .ifffefrlOeR RAO VEERAMALLA, Assistant Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No..l and of Sri. M V HANUMANTHA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER 'RTKANTFi I t I I I I t 1 I , : ] t i t ! I I I t i ! I I : j v THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION N0.7078 0F 2025 ORDER This Criminal petition is fited under Section S2g of Bharatiya Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,the BNSS,) for quashment of the order dated 21 .O1.2025 in Crl.M.p.No.7143 o't 2023 in CCNI No.14251 of 2022 on the file of the Vil Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad. 2. I have heard Mr. Srikanth Chintala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1_State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 31 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrpC'), seeking to recall pW_2for the purpose of further cross-examination. Upon considering the materials on record, the trial Court passed the impugned order, observing that the reason advanced by the petitioner that, he had since obtained access to significant material facts, was unconvincing. The Court noted that the cross-examination of pW-2 had already been'l / completed on O2.O8.2023 and concluded that no valid justification 2 NTR,] Crlp-7om 2025 exist to warrant the recall of PW-2 for further cross-examination and dismissed the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the examination of the witness is crucial in order to rebut the statutory presumption arising under the Negotiable lnstrurnents Act. lt is contended that the complainant alleges the advancement of a loan to the petitioner in the year 2014; howeve r, the petitioner seeks to rely on the resolutions of the Board of lhe complainant company in conjunction with the reports filed by the complainant company before the registrar of companies, whicr purportedly do not reflect any such loan transaction. The purposr] of recalling the witness, therefore, is to demonstrate the falsity of the complainant's allegations and to establish that the cheques in question were actually issued in relation to a difft'rrent transaction purely as security, have been improperly invoked and misused in the present complaint.

5. Despite service of notice, there is no r€'presentation on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3 NTR,I Ctlo 707A-ZO2S I i !

6. I have carefully perused the materials available on record and have duly considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner. 7. Upon consideration of the materials on record, it is evident that the present petition seeking recall of PW-2 has been filed at a belated stage, specifically at the conclusion of the examination of witnesses and pending examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. Furthermore, the petitioner has admitted that the cheques, although issued as security, have ind'eed been pressed into service by the complainant This admission supports the conclusion that the cheques were duly issued and signed by the petitioner. 8. Nonetheless, it is open to the petitioner to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 1 18 and 1 39 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act either by the materials on the record or by adducing evidence. lt is also an undisputed fact' as recorded by the trial Court, that the cross-examination of PW-2 was concluded in August 2023, and that the present application for recall has been filed significantly thereafter' I ]I 4 NTR,] CJtp_70|a 2O2S

9. However, in light of the petitioner's submission that certain material aspects, particularly the contents of the complainant company's board resolutions (Exhibits P-8 antl P-9) and the financial reports submitted to the Registrar of C;ompanies, may assist in substantiating the petitioner's defence irnd in rebutting the statutory presumption, this Court is of the op nion that, in the interest of justice, a limited opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioner to further cross-examine PW-2 on these specific aspects. That said, the inconvenience caused to the witness due to such recall cannot be ignored and must b e compensated appropriately.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dismissinr; the petitioner's application is hereby set aside. PW-2 shall be rer:alled for limited cross-examination, restricted exclusively to the issue of whether the amounts allegedly advanced by the complainilnt company are reflected in the board resolutions and financial statements flled before the Registrar of Companies. The recall c,f PW-2 shall be subject to the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.5 000/- to be paid to PW-2. Upon such deposit, the learned Magi:strate shall fix a, convenient date for the cross-examination of PW-2. On th6 scheduled date, the petitioner shall ensure that the cross- 5 MTR,] Ctlo_1078 2O2S examination is compbted without fail and without seeking any adjournment. 11. ln the above terms, the criminal petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed sd/- s //rRUE coPY,/ $'tiLlfff Et%T$'[iR t. - rlr-l/^-- sEcTlltl oFFlcER To, The Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Hyderabad One CC to SRl. SRIKANTH CH Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana One CC to SRl. M' V. HANUMANTHA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 1 2 4

5. Two CD CoPies MKN/PSLw HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 I I, ,: ,/ \.r 'i,^ \. ?\ i,. \l 1E IiEP '025 3{cr.,ucur \-= ORDER CRLP.No.7078 of 2025 i I : i I ! t I i t: j, a: i 'i I I ) I I t E l t ! t I I z I ! I 6 ? E ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIO1.{ $ .ednD' &*