V. SURESH BABU, Sio v. Subba Rao. Aged

2. Mr. B. VENKATA RAMANA, S/o Venkata Ratnam. Aged 62 years, Occ Business, R/o Plot no. 1235. Road no. 60, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad ,..PET|fl ONER/ACCUSED(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad

2. V. SURESH BABU, Sio V. Subba Rao. Aged 37 years, Occ Pvt Employee, R/o Plot No. 243. Plot no. 304, GSK Residency, Bagh Ameer, Kukatpally. Hyderabad

3. M/s. VMC SYSTET\{S LTD. ,, (Company liquidated) Rep by_its Managing Director, Regd. , Office Villa No. 68, IVR Hill redge Villas, Gatchibowli, Hyderabad .RESPONDENT/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 direct the Honble lll Addl District and Sessions Judge- cum- Principal Family Court Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist at Kukatpally to dispose Crl. M. P. No. 620 of 2Oi4 and after appeal period thereof, to hear and pass judgement in the main Crl. A. No. 662 of 2017. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 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 proceedings including passing of the judgemeni in the main crl. A. No 662 of 2017 on the file of the lll Addl District and Judge- cum- Princ_ipal Family court Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist at Kukatpailv pending diiposal of this Criminal petit,on on the file of this Honble court -sessions This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M vENKATESWER RAo ,Advocate for the petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veera Mallu Addl. Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER -, -r THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL pETtTtON No.11872 of 2025 ORDER: This criminal Petition is fired to direct the learned lll- Additional District and sessions Judge cum principal Family court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally to dispose of Crl.M.P. No.620 of 2024 in Crt.A. No.662 of 2017. 2- Heard Mr. M. Venkateswer Rao, Iearned counser for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-state.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed a miscellaneous petition before the trial court seeking to send a document to FSL during the pendency of cc No.237 of 2017 under the Negotiable lnstruments Act, but the trial court has dismissed the same and pronounced the judgment in cc, convicting the petitioners. Against the said judgment of conviction, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the same is pending vide Crl.A. No.662 of 2017. Learned counsel further submitted that in the appeal also the petitioners have filed a miscellaneous petition with the same request of sending the document to FSL before the 2 ETO,J Crl.P. No.l1872 of Z02s appellate (rourt, but arguments were heard in the appear and the matter is posted for judgment. His grievance is that the miscellaneous petition fired by the petitioners in the appear seeking to send the docurnent to FSL, shourd be heard first and decided.

4. Learned Additionar pubric prosecutor has submitted that once the petition filed by the petitioners before the trial court has been dismissed by the triar court, they cannot fire a simirar petition before the appellate court. They can only seek redressal in the appeal since the said orders of the triar court got merged with the judgment, arid he therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. perused the record.

5. 6. The appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court is pending since zoll before the appeiiate court. This criminat petition is filed in 2o2s seeking a direction tc, the appellate court to dispose of the mrsceilaneous petition filed by the petitioners in 2023 vide Crl.M.p. No.620 of 2024, which shows that the petitioners have waited for about a period of six \/ears after firing the appear to fire the misceilaneous petition vide crl.M.p. No.620 of 2024. lf at alr there are any J ETD,J Crl.P. No-11872 of 2025 merits in the petition, the petitioners should have been vigilant before the appellate court when the appeal itself is filed in 2017. They waited for six long years to agitate their grievance through the said miscellaneous petition. However, once they have filed an application before the trial court and the trial court has dismissed the same on merits and has passed the judgment in cc considering the said aspect of examining the signature on the disputed cheques, they have no case before the appellate court with regard to the said grievance. They can only raise it as a ground in the appeal. since they have already submitted their arguments before the appellate court and it is pending for judgment, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the criminal petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. .' "Accordingty, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A.PRATHIMA. REGISTRAR L i ,/TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Addl District and Sessions Judge- cum- Principal Family Court Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist at Kukatpally.

2. One CC to SRl. M VENKATESWER RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] B q. Two CD Copies '.:.':.:iiia HIGH COURT DATED:1 5l0gl2A25 trtE .B 14 (, I2 U r0u z Parc oH * ! t t ! i I I I I e : : a I i t * t t ! i DISMISSED CRLP.No.11872 of 2025 0" ..r' $ a