The High Court · 2025

1. THE STATE,, Rep by its Public Prr:secutor, High Court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad

2. DUSARI SURESH, S/o. D. Madhava Rao, Aged.36 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o. Plot No. 243, Flat no. 102, Srinivasa Towers, Jayanagar, Road no. 4, Aruna Society, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

3. M/s. VMC SYSTEMS LTD., (Company liquidated) Rep by its Managing Director, Regd., Office. Villa No. 68, IVR Hill redge Villas, Gatchibowli, Hyderabad ...Respondents/Complainant 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 direct the lll Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Principal Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist at Kukatpally to dispose Crl.tvl.P.No.622 of 2024 and after appeal period thereof, to hear and pass judgment in the main Crl. A. No. 190 of 2O1l in the interest of justice. l.A. O:2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circi.rmstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings including passing of the judgment in the main Crl.A. No. 190 of 2017 on the file of the lll Addl District and Sessions Judge- cum-Principal [:amily Court tvledchal-Malkajgiri Dist at Kukatpally pending disposal of this Crirninal petition. This Petit,on coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [Vemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of lVlr M VENKATESWER RAO, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr JITHENDER RAO VEERAMAI-LA, the Additional Public Prosecutor''on behalf of Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ',:?F:Ef'r"Ss ' THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMI PETITION No.l187 3 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed 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.622 of 2024 in Crl.A. No.190 of 2017-

2. Heard Mr. M. Venkateswer Rao, learned counsel 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.512 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.190 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 t* --Jt t, !r ,: : J ; { E a t ! It I I ! I : 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.11873 of 2025 appellate court, but arguments were heard in the appeal and the matter is posted for judgment. His grievance is that the miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners in the appeal seeking to send the document to FSL, should be heard first and decided.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that once the petition filed by the petitioners before the trial court has been dismissed by the trial court, they cannot file a similar petition before the appellate court. They can only seek redressal in the appeal since the said orders of the trial court got merged with the judgment, and he therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. 6. The appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court is pending since 2017 before the appellate court. This criminal petition is filed in 2025 seeking a direction to the appellate court to dispose of the miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners in 2023 vide Crl.M.P. lrlo.622 of 2024, which strows that the petitioners have waited for about a period of six years after filing the appeal to file the miscellaneous petition vide Crl.M.P. No.622 of 2024. lf at all there are any i I i I I I I i ; ' I I l i I i I I I i i I I I I I I i I i I ! I I i i i I I I I I I I I I I I i I J J ETD,J Crl.P. No.l1873 ol 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 fited 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 onry 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. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. P. PONNA KRISH REG //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, Medchal-Malkajg]ri Dist at Xuti[pariv 1' The lll Addl' District and Sessions Judge-cum-principal Family Court 2' Two ccs to thePublic Prosecuior, High court for the state of relangana, at ^ l-l-y1de1abad. [oUT] 3 M/s' Vr\rc sysrEMS LTD.,, (loqqany.-liouidated) Rep by its Managing Bff:::lrf"no' orrice villa" No. 6b, rVR"iiiii'i"os" -Virr'r, ''6aich,bowrl 4' one cc to Mr. M ,ENKATESWER RAo, Advocate lopucl vqrrr-I rrrrurPdr rallrr r=,.r.n .-!==7 ::" -/

5. Two CD CoPies I RI,/S.\ Y{ \ HIGH COUR'T DATED: 1510912025 t t t tI L \t \ ORDER CRLP.No.11873 ot 2025 't HES c) ? 5 l\i0lJ 2025 * t Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Dismissed' s -dd X.- $t