The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIM INAL PETITIO NNO:67320 2018 F - Between: ;*y":8,H,'"1i::i:r?3,1', il".)ft'flt''113$;A%lo about 36 vears' occ ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1 I\il.Laxman Yadav,S/o M.Narshimha Yadav' Aged about 34 years' Occ 'dL'"ffiI;: Fv;. s-6-azs, oa,'itij'm no"d' Naftpallv' Hvderabad' 2. The State of Telangana, Rep' by its Public Prosecutor' High Court at HYderabad. ..Respondents/ComPlainant PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayin.gthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandr#"t b-.*4. ot Ctitninut Fetition, the High Court may be oleased to quash tne orOer.-aai"d 21-06-2018 made in Crl'M'P' No 1250 of ;.,t#"&n"l;;; zore'.; trc rir" or the Hon'bte X special Magistrate, at Hyderabad. l. .NO:1OF 2018 PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandr.-or c-r-o*6" ot cririnut Fetition, the High Gourt^may the petitioner in CC'No'28 of be pleased to Stay att turtnJr pt"o"-Oi"g1 ?S.a.insJ -uagistrate, at Hyderabad pending 2018 on the fite ot ft,e ion'[re i spe-ciat disposal of the Criminal petition. I.A. N oF2 18 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 extend the stay granted on 06-09-2018 in crl.P.No.6732 of 2018 in cc.trto.zeof20lsonthefileofXSpecialMagistrateatHyderabadpending disposal of the main Petition' .A" NO F 2018 Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances the High court may ""ro.i'iilora in crr.p.No.67 32t2o1. in stated in the Memorandum be pteased to extend the stay granted CC.No.2Bl2018 on the fite of the]i sp!"iJ r,rr"si"iiiL at nyoerabaa. .A O:1 crouna"-"i c",.i#iili '"etition, "r F 19 Petition under Section .4g2 0I cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Ground. High Courr may be preased to extend the s-tay granted o" so-ii-)6ia in crr.p.No.6732 of 2018 in "t i *i o r " i' i p"i i ", r',r1 g i, i,., t.,t 1{ ;1;; ;"" 0, ;"t# :r' : #'"] :;il H"l'l'J:y''- l.A. NO: 50F 2019 'pgtitlol_tf,e C-ri,ii"li Petition under Section 4gZ of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Ground" c1i'Ii.ri p.tition_, the High court may be preased to extend the. stay granted o"l)ogzorg in rA 4 0f 2019 in cRLp "i No.6732t2o18 in c.c.28/2o1a;" *;-ilt"';;,;. X Speciat Masistrate ar Hyderabad pending disposat or t" rn"in p"ii;i.;. "' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of "rp* Grounds of Criminal petition unU iearing the arguments of sri B satish' Advocate for the petitioner and sri r.t-axmi Narayana, representing sri MAK Mukheed, Advocate for the Respondent No.1, and sri M.vivekananda Reddy, Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER l- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J' SREENTVAS RAO CRIMI NAL PETITI ON No. 6732 of 20La ORDER Thiscriminalpetitionhasbeenfiledbythepetitioner/accused aggrieved by the order passed by the learned' X Special Magistrate' Hyderabad, in CrI M P'Nos 1250 and 1252 of 2O18 in C'C'No 28 of 2018, dated 2l O6'2lla,where-under the learned Magistrate allowed the petitions filed by respondent No 1/complainant seeking to reopen and reca1l PWs' 1 and 3 for further evidence and to receive and mark the documents, which are frled along with the petitions' 2. Heard Mr' B' Satish' learned counsel for the petitioner' and Mr.T.LaxmiNarayana,learnedcounsel,representingMr.M.A.K. resPondent No 1, and counsel for Mukheed, learned Mr. M.Vivekananda appearing for respondent No'2 State' ReddY, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Learned counsel for the petitioner submitterl that in C'C No'28 3. of 2018, PWs.l to 3 were examined and Exs P' 1 to P'8 documents were marked and the evidence of the respondent No' 1/ complainant 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 petrtioner, erroneously allowed the petitions, by its order dated 21.O6.201g. Hence, the rmpugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be set zrside

4. Per contra, learned 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 rvould bc caused to the petitioner and there is no illegality or irregularity 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 materrial available on record, it reveals that respondent No.1 filed a private complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under SecLions 13g and 742 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1gg 1, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.2B of 201g. In the said case, respondent No.1 filed petitions i.e., crl.M.p.Nos.1250 and. 12s2 of 201g, for recalling PWs.1 and 3 for lhe 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 / ./' J docum'ents counsel 0n recorcl has failed to bring al1 the relevant facts and before the Court below and for effective adjudication of the matter, recalling of PWs l and 3 and marking of documents rs very much required, and by virtue of recalling PWs l and 3 and receiving and marking of the documents' no prejuclice is going to be caused to the petitioner' The iearned Magistrate after considering the contentions of the respective parties allowed the petitions by imposing costs of Rs'1,OOO/- in each petition by giving reasons' I,t is pertinent to mention that responden[ No 1 ought to have 6. produced the documents during the course of evidence of PWs l and 3andtherearelatchesonthepartofrespondentNo.landhehas not prosecuted the proceedings diligently' The specific contention of respondent No. 1 is that his earlier counsel did not brought all the facts and failed to lile ali the documents' though the same had been handed over to him' It is trite law that clue to the mistake on the part of the counsel, party should not be suffer' The trial Court while allowing the petitions rightly heid that the petitioner is entitled to cross.examine PWs.1 and 3. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to raise ail the objections in respect of admissibility of the documents during the course of further evidence ol PWs. I and 3. \ 4

7. It is already stated supra that respondent No.1 also not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings before the trial Court. However, to render substantial justice and also to balance the equities to both the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the costs imposed by the learned Magistrate is enhanced to Rs.2,500/, in each petition, in addition to the costs, which was already imposed by the learned Magistrate. IS IS

8. With the above said modification, the criminal petitlon disposed of and respondent No. 1 directed to pay costs of Its.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand hve hundred only) in each petition, in addition to the costs as awarded by the learned Magistrate, to thc petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The learnecl Magistrate is directed to dispose of the main case i.e., C.C.No.2g of 2o18, as expeditiously as possible and both the partics are clirected [o cooperate for disposal of the case without seeking undue adjournments. Miscellaneous applications, pending if arry, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. A PRATHIMA. DEPUTY REG]STRAR a-_ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. 3. 4. .5. WI l_ The X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad r ne urarton House Officer. Begum Bazar policsstation, Hyderabad Two CCs to pubtic prosecutor, High Court f;1d4.;i; of Tetangana at Hyderabad [OUTj Pn. 99 i" lri-q Saush, Advocate [opUC] One CC to Sri M A K Mukheed, Advtcate JbeUCl Two CD Copies :. ...- -. ..:::::a:ia!ffirr:_:Xqi.:&!,_rrr;ii6ir!,r-i,"_ 1.*.{F _*-,; * --. ,yn*ri_u.."€-'!*!a ::...-; -::-i.-: -,:::---.1 . r','i- J l/if ,c - .,.. -i ..-i. . (.) 1 ; SEP ?[?5 .}- 1r:\-t^i--: HIGH COURT DATED: lOtOgtzO2S ORDER CRLP.No.6732 of 20i8 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 11 I