The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS 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 to quash the order dtd14-06-2022 passed in Crl.MP.No.215 ol 2022 in CC.No.282 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpally. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC.No.282 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpally pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E GANESH, Assibtant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and of Sri. CHINCHU SRAVAN KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER I I i l : ) i i ! I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5588 OF 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the petitioner/respondent/ accused, seeking to quash the order dated 14.06.2022 in Cr1.M.P.No.2l5 of 2022 in C.C.No.282 of 2Ola on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpally

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2/State. No representation on behalf of unofflcial respondent. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a case in C.C.No.282 of 2Ol8 against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the same was posted for examination of accused. The complainant died on 23.06.202 1 by leaving behind his legally wedded wife by name Mulukala Swathi, as his legal heir ald it was necessary to bring the legal heir of the a"."."Jg complainant on record as complainaat No.2 for 2 EW,J CrLP-No.55aa ol 2022 better adjudication of the matter, as such proposed complainant filed Cri.M.P.No.215 of 2022 in C.C.No.282 of 20 18, seeking to bring her on record as legai heir of the deceased complainant. After hearing both sides, the trial Court allow-ed the petition. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the deceased complarnalt died by leaving behind his parents ald his sister as his 1egaI heirs but not the respondent/ proposed complainant. He further contended that the proposed complainalt obtained customa4r divorce from the deceased complainant and she had been residing with her parents and after the death of the deceased complainant, the proposed complainant filed D.V.C.No.42 of 2021 agatnst the parents and sister of the deceased complainant. He further contended that the respondent/proposed complainant does not have locus to file petition seeking to bring her on record as legal heir of the deceased complainant as she suppressed the material facts arrd misleading this Court without including ) , I 1 I I i i l I EW,J CrLP.No.55E8 oJ 2022 3 the parents and sister of the deceased complainant as legal heirs. Therefore, he seeks to allow the Criminal Petition.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that after hearing both sides and after appreciating the material on record the trial Court rightly passed the impugned order and interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. A perusal of record revea-ls that this Court vide order dated 29.06.2022 perrnitted the petitioner herein to take out personal notice to respondent/proposed complainant but as on today no record to that extent is filed into the Registry. This matter is pending for 2Yz years, as such the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to adjudicate the matter on merits. 7 . Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the subject matter has to be decided by the learned trial Court itself that whether the lega1 heirs of the deceased complainant have any locus, as such this Court deems it I l l 4 EW,J C.LP,No.55AA of 2022 appropriate to remanci the case to the trial Court and the petitioner is directed to frle al application raising his objection ald upon such filing, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the case after all the legal heirs of the deceased complainant on notice. B. With the above observation, the Criminal petition is disposed of Miscellaleous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed t i //TRUE COPY// to '-- SD/- T. JAYASREE GISTRAR qEPUTY RE .'.JSEGTION OFFICER To,

2. J. 4_ 5 MKN/gh Junior Clvil Judge-cum-JuCicial tvlagistrate of First Class, Metpally One CC to SRl. HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor Advocate [OUT] One CC to SRl. CHINCHU SRAVAN KUMAR Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies w ) ) HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 ORDER GRLP.No.5588 of 2022 1r,c s . l' ('( Z at' t) \,.'; 04 AU6 zffi \-\(,/i\ -Sn,,-- r, .,1 t- \-:_i,,:=v i I I I I j I DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 0 \ A. )u,