The High Court · 2024

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 extend the order dated 2910812024 in CRLRC No.90712024 until further orders. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11303 OF 2025 Between: lVl/s. Arpan Herbikem, Rep. by its Managing Director Adarsh Patwari, Aged about 46 years Reg. office at Sy.No. 5-1-23418. Jambagh Sunder Bhavan, Hyderabad- 500 095, Telangana. .Petitioner/Accused AND 1 The State of Telangana, (through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ) lV/s. Divya Enterprises, Rep by its Proprietress, Mrs. Reena Lewis,_ag-e-d- - about 45 years, Office at 6-5-128, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad - 500 003. 2 ...RespondenUComPlainant Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circums[ances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings orders passed in Crl.MP No. 257 of 2024 and Crl.MP 258 of 2024 and Crl.MP 256 of 2024 io CC No. 3874 of 2019 dated 22nd July 2024 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge Cum XX Additional Chief Metropolitan l\,ilagistrate, City Civil Court Secunderabad by allowing the Criminal Petition as illegal, arbitrary and abuse of process of law. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C R/w 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 all further proceedings against the Petitioner / Accused in CC No. 3874 ot 2019 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge Cum XX Additional Chief Metropolitan lrilagistrate, Secunderabad. i: l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying thal in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend lhe order dated 20/09/2024 in CRLRC No. 979 of 2024 until furth er orders CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11304 OF 2025 Between: M/s Rege Engredea Private Limited, Rep. by its Patwari, Aged about 46 years Reg. office at Sy.No (M), Nalgonda (D), Telangana 5081 14 Mar a,;ing Director Adarsh 572 3undrampally Chityal AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, (through Public Prosecutor, H git Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad) lVl/s. Divya Errterprises, Rep by its Proprietress, l',4rs. F:eena Lewis, aged about 45 years, Office at 6-5 128, New Bhoiguda, SecLtnderabad - 500 003 Pet itio ne r/Accu sed Res p cndenUComplainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that lr the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings orders passed Crl.lt/P ltlo. 263 of 2024 and Crl.tVP 264 of 2024 and CrI MP 262 ot 2024 in CC No. 38'3 of 2019 dated 22nd July 2024 on the file of the XVI- Additional Judge Cunt XX Additional Chief Metropolitan tvlagistrate, Secunderabad by allowing the crirn nal petition same as illegal, arbitrary and abuse the process of law. /'. ., :/. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 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 all further proceedings against the Petitioner / Accused in CC No. 3873 of 2019 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge Cum XX Additional Chief l\,4etropolitan Maqistrate, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [r,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the order daled 2010912024 in CRLRC No 980 of 2024 unlil fu rther orders. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Yogesh Kumar Heroor, Advocate for the Petitioners in all CRLPs and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.1 in all CRLPs and of Sri B ARJUN RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No 2 in all CRLPS, The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA D="/l EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1 1 3UJ 1302, 1 130il,and 11304 oF 2025 COMMON ORDER: Crl.P.No.11301 of 2025 is filed by the petiti,tner seeking to set asrde the orders passed in Crl.M.P Nos.260, ,l€'1 and 259 of 2024 in C C No.3B71 of 20'19 by the learned XVI Ariditional Judge- cum-XX Additional Chief tMetropolrtan Magistrate al {lecunderabad (for short 'the trial Court') 2 Crl.P.No.11302 ot 2025 is filed by the petitir>ner seeking to set aside the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.255, i:53 and 254 o{ 2024 in C C No.3872 of 2019 by the learned XVI Adclrtional Judge- curn-XX Additional Chief lvletropolitan [\4agislrate at Iiecu nderabad (for short 'the trial Court'). 3 Cr|.P.No.11303 ol 2025 is filed by the petitiorer seeking to set aside the orders passed in Crl M.P.Nos.257, 25B and 256 of 2024 in C C No.3B74 of 2019 by the learned XVI Arlditional Judge- cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Siecunderabacl (for short 'the trial Court'). 1 i 2 4 Crl.P.No.11304 ot 2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the orders passed in Crl M P Nos.263, 264 and 262 o,f 2024 in C.C No.3B73 of 2019 by the learned XVI Additional Judge- cum-XX Additional Chief tMetropolitan IMagistrate at Secunderabad (for short 'the trial Court')

5. Since the petitioner is the accused in all the petitions, they are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order. Heard the submissions of Sri H.Yogesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Arjun Rao, learned counsel for respondent No2 6 The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the calendar case before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity

7. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the allegations are under Section 138 of Negotiable lnstruments Act, '1881 (for short'Nl Act, 1881 ') and that the accused company has given two cheques towards security and but not towards legally enforceable debt but that the complainant company has misused the chbques and filed the case under Section 138 Nl Act, wherein the matter is at the fag end of trial i.e. 313 Cr.P.C. examination also ./ 3 got completed, rhen the accused company filed al appli-cation for .y defence evidence and he submitted during the :ourse of his evidence that he has paid some amounts and therr PW.1 has filed reopen, recall and receive documents petitions t,t cover up the lacunae, which were allowed by the trial Cou:1 He further submitted that the complainant has filed the case with a rnalafide intention and that now if another opportunity is pr:vided to PW1 , she rnay cover up the lacunae and gain unlaMuly Through the sard petitions, the complainant intends to rectify the edger accounts and file the nerr ledgers. Already ledgers have lreren placed on record but now the complainant has taken o [,lr:a that some mistakes have crept in the ledgers and have rectilierd the ledgers anC intends to file the new ledgers, which is not pe rrnissible in the eye of law. He further submitted that the accused has already paid the amounts to the complainant and that the accused is clischarged and that the notrce issued under Section 138 of N I Act is not at all valid. He further submitted that the complairant has filed promissory note along with the new ledger with the petitions and the said promissory note also proves that the complain tnt intentionally wants to prejudice the rights of the accused anrl that the said i I I I I I I : I l i 5 i, I I ,l I I -I 4 promissory note is not at all issued by the accused. He therefore. prayed to set aside the orders of the trial Court

8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the accused intends to adduce evidence with regard to the errors that crept in the ledger accounts which came to their notice and that while cross checking the list of documents filed by the accused as document No.6, it was found that an amount of Rs 7,08,000/- was paid by the accused on '16 10.20i7 got reflected in the debit column of the tedger account for the period 01 .04.2017 to 31.03.2018, which is filed and marked as Ex p17 but due to oversight it was not reflected in the corresponding credit column and that when they came across the list of documents filed by the respondentaccused, they realized that the payment of Rs.7,08,0001 made by the accused was reflected in the debit column but the same was not reflected in the credit column, they got it rectified and intended to file the same. He further pointed out that whatever entries that are made would be a part of book of accounts and hence, no prejudice would be caused to the accused. It is only an inadvertent mistake and thus, it can be corrected. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition and confirm the orders of theltrial Court. .r. l

9. Perused the record.

10. The complainant has made petitions seekinc; to reopen the evidence of the complainant, recall her evidence for further marking of documents and to receive documents and allow hr:r to mark the rectified ledger account and promissory note. 't-he petitioner contends that while cross checking the list of docum,:nts filed by the respondent-accused, in document No.6 it was found that an amount of Rs.7,08,0001 was paid by the accused on 16.10.2017 got reflected in the debit column of the ledger account for the period 01 042017 to 31.03.2018, which is filed and marked as Ex.P17 but due to oversight it was not reflected in the corre,sponding credit column. Thus, the discrepancy was brought to the notice of the complainant's clrartered accountant who had rec;tified the said mistake and issued a corrected ledger account for tl"e period from 01 04.2017 till 15.1 1 .2019 and it is the firrthe- case of the complainant that the entries in the corrected ledger account prepared by the complainant's chartered accourtant would be invariably reflected in the books of accounts of the conplainant and also the accused. Therefore, no prejudice would b{) caused to the accused. Hence, prayed to receive the corrected leclger account for the period of 01 .042017 to 31.03.2018,01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019, ,i :r 6

01.04.2019 to 15.11.2019 and the promissory note dated

22.01 .2019 to be marked as exhibits

11. A perusal of the ledger account intended to be marked maintained by M/s.Divya Enterprises, which happens to be the de facfo complainant with regard to the account of tt//s.Rege Engredea Private Limited i.e. the account of the accused pertaining to 01 04.2017 to 31.03 2018 an amount of Rs 7,08,000/- is reflected in both debit and credit columns. The list of documents intended to be filed by the complainant includes the promissory note and also the corrected ledger accounts as discussed above

12. The accused has filed his counter in the said petitions before the trial Court and at paragraph No.7 of the said counter he has stated that the complainant through this application to recetve documents filed on 08.04.2024 admits that it already received Rs.7,08,0001 on 16.10.2017 and also further admits that the said amount received from the accused was not reflected in complainant's ledger due to oversight. That this change in the pleadings will clearly prove that there is no legally enforceable debt payable by the accused. Thus even as per the accused, the petition filed by the complainant to receive these documents would i+ 7 aid the case of the accused in other words. Further he has a chance to cross examine the witness based on his ctntention 1 3 The learned ccunsel for the quash petitioner l- as also reIed upon a decision of the Andhra High Court (pre --lelangana) in K.Chokka Rao v. A.Veerabhadra Raol, wherein it has held that Court should not permit the parties to fill up the lar:unae in their evidence. lf it is done that would amounts to flrtutino the well established principles of criminal jurisprudence. 14 Learned counsel also relied upon the decisir>n of the Delhi High Court in Rahul Darbari v. Arun Kumar t(hobragade2, wherein it was held that if the documents were in the possession and control of the Complainant, and the Complainan,: still chooses not to file the same at the earliest opportunity, the sarne should not be allowed to be frled at such a belated stage. This r,vould protract the Complainant's Case endlessly and would defeitt the rights of the accused. who, instead of or in addition to civil ltroceedings, is facing a criminal prosecution. The said case law do,:r; not apply to the case on hand because in the present case the drtr;uments were already filed but certain errors have crept in the ledger accoLtnt '-tggs tzt ALo 239 ? 2'D}(SCC onLrne Det 2521 I I I I t E I l I t' l -I I l I l i I Ii t, t. tI I t I i I I I l1 I 8 which were rectified subsequently and hence, the petitioner wants to file the new ledger accounts.

15. Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs Central Bureau Of lnvestigation3, wherein it was held that where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non- examination of the witness earlier is not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at a belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed and the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision. ln the said case there were multiple applications filed to summon lVlr. H.S. Tuteja but the prosecution has failed to procure his attendance in the Court since 2004-2011 the process went on and on 15.09.2014, yet again, the High Court in a Criminal revision application observed that since the trial is pending for a long time, steps must be taken by the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. Even thereafter, the trial court has allowed the application fileci by the prosecution for summoning Mr. H.S. Tuteja, whicQ order has been confirmed by the High Court. ln such a \ '1zors1 tn scc aza 9 situation, the Apex Court has held that the High Court ought to have accepted the appeal and rejected the application of he prosecution for summoning the witness. The facts of the present case differ with that decision cited above, here the PW'1 herself got examined and got marked certain documents. However, since certain mistakes have crept in when compared to the docurnents filed by the accused, they wanted to rectify their mistakes.

16. The learned counsel for the respondent in thit; quash petition relied upon a decision of the Apex Cou( in Raienclra Prasad v. Narcotic Cetl through its Officer in Charge, Delhf , wherein it was held in the said case by the Apex Court that tlre contention of the appellant that as a legal proposition that tht: Court cannot exercise power of re-summoning any witness if on,:e that power was exercised is not acceptable, nor can the po'ru:r be whittled down merely on the ground that the prosecution discovered latches only when the defence highlighted them during final a'guments. The power of the coLrrt is plenary to summon or even re:all any witness at any stage of the case if the court considers it necessary for a just decision, the steps which the trial court permitted in the said case , .il '(1999) 6 scc 110 t l0 for re-summoning certain witnesses cannot therefore be spurned down nor frowned at

17. The decision in Rajendra prasads case (supra 4) squarely applies to the case in hand. rt is arready discussed above that the counter filed by the accused itserf shows that the admission made by the complainant through these documents would help his case. Under these circumstances, reopening the evidence of the complainant, recalling of the witness for marking the said documents would not result in any prejudice to the accused. Therefore, it is held that the orders passed by the triar court do not need any interference and the same are upheld.

18. ln the result, the Criminal petitions are dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed To, SD/- A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// SE ON OFFICER 1 2 J 4 The XVI- Additional Judge cum XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' City Civil Court, Secunderabad i*l cc" to the public prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) oill cC to snt vbcrsu KUMAR HERooR, Advocate [oPUC] One CC to SRI B ARJUN RAO, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies ADK \(r .rc: HIGH COURT DATED:1 510912025 d2/ COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.11301 , 11302,11303 and 1 1:304 OF 2025 : I'i-j: ':. 1- a t:) t 1 7 ti'u'J 20ffi DISMISSING ALL THE CRLPs 4 -(o\ @Y' &.",