The High Court · 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 to call for the records relating to the CC.N.l No.9358 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Hyderabad and set-a-side the order passed by the Hon'ble Vlll Judicial I\/agistrate of First Class, at Hyderabad in Crl.lV'I.P No.4956 of 2024 on 02-07-2025 and direct the Trial Court to dlspose the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within period of 2 months exercising the inherent power U/Sec.528 of BNSS. LA. NO: 1OF 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC N.l.No.935B of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble Vllt Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Gangishetti Srinivas, Advocate for the Petitioner and the IVIr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. J Criminal Petition No. 10828 of 2O25 Between: Dinesh C. Jain, S/o. Late Champalal Purakh Jain, Age: 47 years, Occ: Business, Siddhi Jeweliery, R/o. H.No.3-1-248, Samsundaram Street, Ward No.3, Secunderabad. ... Petitioner/Accused AND

1. The State cf Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor High Court of JudicatureofT6rlangana, atHyderabad. .,.Respondents/Respondents 2. M/s Sidhartha lmpex, Rep. by its Proprietor Siddhartl'r Reddy, S/o. Narsa Reddy, age about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.509, 22l1, FlatNo. 11, Maheshwari Residency, Opp. New MLA Quarters, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUComplainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorendum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the CC.N.l.No.9359 of 2022 on lhe file of Hon'ble Vlll Juriicial Magistrate of First Class, at Hyderabad and set-a-side the order passed b,z the Hon'ble Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Hyderabad in Crl {\4.F.No.4957 of 2024 on 02-07-2025 and direct the Trial Court to dispose the malte as expeditiously as possible preferably within period of 2 months exercising the inherent power U/Sec.528 of BNSS. l-A. NO: 1OF 2O2s Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Menrore ndum of Grounds of Cnminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant s ay of all further proceedings in CC.N l. No. 9359 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Hycerabad. This Petition rroming on for hearing, upon perusing the lr/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal retition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Gangishetti Srinivas, Advocate f:r the Petitioner and the Mr- Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. Criminal Petition No.10830 of 2025 Between: Dinesh C. Jain, S/o. Late Champalal Purakh Jain, Age: 47 years, Occ: Business, Siddhi Jewellery, R/o. H.No.3-1-248, Samsundaram Street, Ward No. 3, Secunderabad. ...Petitioner/Accused AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature of Tr:langana, at Hyderabad.

2. M/s. sidhartha rmpex, Rep. by its propriet"; i[Xffi;'i:i11]::fi,:lj: Reddy, age ab:ut 45 years. Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 509,2211, FIat No. 1'l , l/aheshwari Residency, Hyderabad. Opp. New MLA Quarters, Adarsh Nagar, ...RespondenUComplainant 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 call for the records relating to the CC N.l. No. 9361 of 2022 on lhe file of Hon'ble Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Hyderabad and set.a-side the order passed by the Hon'ble Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class. at Hyderabad in Crl.M.P No.495B of 2024 on 02-07-2025 and direct the Trial Court to dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within period of 2 months exercising the inherent power U/Sec.528 of BNSS. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated rn the l\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC.N.l. No. 9361 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble Vtll Judicial [/agistrate of First Class, at Hyderabad This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l\Iemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Gangishetti Srinivas, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I rHE HCII'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\/I EADA CRIMINAI." F ETITION NOS.10824 10828 AND 10830 0F 2025 COMMON ORDER: set aside the order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Cil.1M.P.No.4956 I of 2024 in C C NI No.935B of 2022 by the learned Vlll Judicial [\4agistrate of :irst Class, Hyderabad (for short'the trial Court'). 2 Cr1.P.No.10828 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Crl.fV.P.No.4957 of 2024 in C C NI No.9359 of 2022 by the learned Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad (for short 'the trial Court').

3. Crl.P.No.10830 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside tlre order dated 0207.2025 passed in Crl.M P.No.4958 of 2024 in C C.NI No.9361 of 2022 by the learned Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad (for short'the trial Court')

4. Heard the submissions of Sri Gangishetty Srinivas, learned counsel for tre petitioner. lnspite of the notice being served on respondenl N o 2 and inspite of ample opportunities the respondent failed to app€rar I 2

5. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that after six years of pendency, the recall petition is filed by the complainant for recalling DW2 for further cross examination on behalf of the petitioner and the same is allowed by the trial Court. He further submitted that DW2 was cross examined at length by the complainant counsel and that there is no reason for recalling DW2 The only reason stated by the complainant is that there is a change in the counsel on record and hence, he wants to further cross examine the witness, which is not tenable in the eye of law. He further submitted that DW2 has undenvent heart surgery and he is an old aged person and summoning him again would not merit for consrderation, hence, prayed to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court

6. Perused the record 7 The cases under Nl Act are pending vide Nos.935B, 9359 and 9361 of 2022 on the file of the learned Vlll Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Hyderabad. B. A perusal of record reveals that the chief examination of DW2 was done on 27 .11.2018 and Exs.D9 to D18 were marked in I his evldence. lnspite of several opportunities, the counsel did not - I -l turn up to c ross examine the witness, as such the cross examination was closed treating as nil on 07.02.2019. Further, the evidence o'f DN2 was reopened and he was recalled vide orders dated 01 052)19 and DW2 was cross examined on 27.06.2019 and also ctn 17.07.2019. On both the occasions the cross examination ,vas conducted and the counsel on record has questioned D\V2 with regard to all the documents marked through him.

9. The pet tion to recall DW2 is filed on 17.10 2C?-4 stating that further cross examination of DW2 is necessary as the complainant has changed ris advocate and the cross examination is important to specifically question the documents filed through DW2. The record does nct disclose any fresh documents filed by the DW2 '1 0. The le:rrned Magistrate has also observed that DW2 was cross exanrir ed at length and also that mere changing of a counsel is not a ground to recall the witness, but still it has went ahead in allovring the petition I I l

11. ln Sfafe (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadavl , the Apex Court has held that change of counsel is not a ground to recall the witn ess

12. There was no necessity for the trial Court to allow the petition but for that ground of changing the counsel, no other ground is assigned to be a reason for recalling the said wttness, though the counsel says that he wants to specifically cross examine the witness on certain documents, he has not specified on which documents he wants to cross examine and it is also already borne out by record that the earlier counsel has cross examined DW2 on the documents produced by him, therefore, there are no merits in the petitions, hence the petitions filed by the complainant ought to have been dismissed

13. ln view of the above held discussion and in the light of the said decision, it is opined that the orders passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside and the petitions are entitled to be allowed. i\ (1016) 2 SCC .102 :\ l 14 ln the rersult, the Criminal Petitions are allovred and the orders dated C207.2025 passed in Crl.l\4.P.No4956,4957 and 4958 of 2024 i-t C C NI No.9358, 9359 and 9361 ot 2022 by the learned Vlll Jrrdicial lr/agistrate of First Class, Hyderabad, are hereby set aside, Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-A.JAYASREE ASSIS'TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To,

1. The Vlll Judiciai Magistrate of First Class, at Hyderab a 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sta te of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to Mr. Gangishetti Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KantlPSL I HIGH COURT DATED:1610912025 }.; I tI ? t 2t25 / * COMMON ORDER CRLP.NoS .101 24, 10828 and 10830 of 2025 ALLOWING THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS go l?d