The High Court · 2025

'1. M.Laxman Yadav, Rl/o, 5-6-825, Darusalam Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the f\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 21-06-2018 made in Crl.M.P. No.1249 of 2018 in CC.No. 29 ot 2018 on the file of the X Special Magistrate at Hyderabad. !.A. NO: I OF 2018 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 stay all further proceedings against the petitioner in CC.No. 29 of 2018 on the file of the X Special Magistrate at Hyderabad pending disposal of the criminal petition. l.A. NO: 4 OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 of C:.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted on 10.10.2018 in Crl. P. No.6735/2018 in CC.No. 2912018 on the file of the X Special Magistrate at Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition ?ld w91 rr-earing the arguments of sri B.Satish, Advocate for the Petitioner and the sri r.Laxmi fuar.y"n" Advocate, representing sri M.A.K.Mukheed, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 and sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENT\IAS RAO CRIMINAL PEIITION No.6735 of 2O18 ORDER: This criminal petition has been hled by the petitioner/ accusecl aggrieved by the order passed by the learned X Special Magistrate, I lyderabad, in Crl.M.P.Nos.l249 and 125i of 2O18 in C.C.No.29 of 2018, dated 21.06.2018, where-under the learned Magistrate allowed the petitions filed by respondent No. 1 / complainant seeking to reopen and recall PWs.1 and 3 for further evidence and to receive and mark the documents, which are hled along with the petitions.

2. Heard Mr. B. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. T. Laxmi Narayana, learned counsel, representing Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for respondenL No.1, and Mr. M.Vivekananda Rcddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in C.C.No.29 of 2018, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P. I to P.8 documents were marked and the evidence of the respondent No. 1/ compiainant as well as the petitioner/accused was closed and when the matter was posted for arguments, respondent No.1 herein filed petitions seeking reopening of the case and recall PWs. 1 and 3 for the purpose of their further evidence and marking of documents and the same is 2 not permissible under law. However, the learned Magistrate, without properly considering the contentions of the petitioner, erroneously allowed the petitions, by its order dated 2 1 .06.2O 18. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, Iearned counsel for respondent No. 1/ complainant submitted that the learned Magistrate by giving cogent reasons allowed the petitions with costs and respondent No. t has paid the costs. By virtue of the impugned order, no prejudice. would be caused to thc petitioner and there is no illegality or irregularigr in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the maLerial available on record, it reveals that respondent No.l fi1ed a private complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.29 of 2018. In the said case, respondent No.1 filed petitions i.e., Crl.M.P.N os.1249 and 1251 of 2O18, for recalling PWs. 1 and 3 for the purpose of further evidence and to receive and mark the documents as exhibits on their behalf. In the said petitions, respondent No.1 specifically mentioned that his earlier 3 counsel on record has failed to bring all the relevant facts and documents before the Court below and for effective adjudicatlon of the matter, recalling of PWs'l and 3 and marking of documents is very much required, and by virtue of recalling PWs' 1 and 3 and receiving and marking of the documents' no piejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner' The learned Magistrate after considering the contentions of the respective parties allowed the petitions by imposing costs of Rs' 1,O00/- on each petition by giving reasons' It is pertinent to mention that respondent No 1 ought to have 6. produced the documents during the course of evidence of PWs l and 3andtherearelatckresonthepartofrespondentNo.landhehas not prosecuted the proceedings diligently' The specifrc contention of respondent No.l is that his earlier counsel did not brought all the facts and failed to file all the documents' though the same had been handed over to him' It is trite law that due to the mistake on the part of the counsei, party should not be suffer' The trial Court rvhile allowing the petitions rightly held that the petitioner is entitled to . Hence, this Court is of the view that the cross-examine PWs l and 3 raise all the objections in respect of petitioner is entitled to admissibility of the documents during the course of further evidence of PWs.l and 3. \ 4 i.

7. It is already stated supra thal respondent No. I also not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings before the trial Court. However, to render substantial justice and also to barance the equities to both the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the costs imposcd by the learned Magistrate is enhanced to Rs.2,SOO/- in each petition, in addition to the costs, which was already imposed by the learned Magistrate.

8. With the above said moclification, the disposed of and respondent No.1 rs directed lo Rs.2,50O/- (Rupees two thousancl hve hundred only) in addition to the costs as awarded by the learned petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from to Magistrate is directed to dispose of the main case 2018, as expeditiously as possible and both the pa to cooperate for disposal of the case without crtminal petition IS Pay costs of tn each petition, Magistrate, to the day. The learned i.e., C.C.No.29 of rties are directed seeking undue adjournments. Mpl"!T_.grl qpplr-g3!i9ns, pe!d1n.s if.any, shail stand crosed //TRUE COPYII ".F8f+fff3+Sft a.- SECTION OFFICER X Snecial Magistrate, Hyderabad. ]he Prosecutor, Hish court for the state of rerangana at lya"":""r:iissPublic :"" :" to Sri B.Sastish, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to Sri M.A.K. Mukh Two cD copies reed' Advocate [oPUc] To, 1 3

5. HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 ORDER CRLP.No.6735 of 2018 ,4 /'/"'. ).) sI 1i 5l 1i i i lr . . 1,-:L i\ :| DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION x