The High Court · 2025

Sri. R. Narender, S/o. Late R. Pentaiah, Age No 3-2-645, Rahmathbagh, Beside Om Kachiguda, Hyderabad - 500 027. . 50 yea rs;, Occ. Sai Residency, Business, H. Barkatpura, ...PETlTlC,NER/COMPLAINANT AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Procecutor F yJerabad. 2 ...RESPONDENT Sri Kayathi Srihari, S/o. Late Muralidhar, Age 48 years, Occ Govt Service, P"pr.lty. .Director of Medical Human Service, H' No.1-6-4313112, Mutyam Reddy Nagar, Kanajiguda, Secundarabad 500 0'15. (M) 8309140839 and-also at Sri. Kayathi Srihari, S/o. Late [/luralidhar, age 4B yea-s, Occ. Govt. Service, Deputy Drrector of [V'ledical Human Service, Directcjratr: ,rf Public Health and FW. 4-5-802 Kasinath Vaidya tr/arg, 3rd Floor, Bacrchowdi, Sultanbazar., Hyderabad. ...RESI)ONDENT/ACCUSED Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that n the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition 1.he High Court may be pleased to quash the Docket order dated 30.01 .2024 passed by Ld VII Judicial Magrstrate First class Magistrate in src Nl No. 127 I ol 2024 and restore the present case from its regular Calendar Case i.e., CC N lr,lo 66 of 2024 to its original STC Nl No.1279 of 2023 and to proceed thereafter ers per law. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding in CC Nl. NO. 66 of 2024 (STC Nl No. 1279 ot 2023), on the file of Vll Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad till the disposal of Crl. P l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 extend the order of stay granted on 2111012024 of all further proceedings in C C. Nl No.66 of 2024 (SfC Nl No. 1279 of 2024), on the fite of Ld. Vll Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above criminal petition. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 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 extend the order of stay granted on 21 10.2024 of all further proceedings in C.C. Nl No.66 of 2024 on the file of Ld. Vll Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above criminal petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12592 OF 2024 Between: Sri. R. Narender, S/o. Late R. Pentaiah, Aqe No.3-2-645, Rahmathbagh, Beside Om- Kachiguda, Hyderabad - 500 027. . 50 years, Occ. Sai Residency, Business, H. Barkatpura, AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Procecutor Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERYCOMPLAINANT 2 Sri. Kayathi Srihari, S/o. Late Muralidhar, Age 48 years, Occ. Govt. Service, Qeputy. Director of Medical Human Service, H. No.1-6-4313112, tVlutyam Reddy Nagar, Kanaliguda, Secundarabad 500 015. (tU) 8309140839 and llso at Sri. Kayathi Srihari, S/o. Late Muralidhar, age 48 years, Occ. Govt. Service, Deputy Director of Medical Human Service, Directorate of Public Health and FW, 4-5-802, Kasinath Vaidya tvlarg, 3rd Floor, Badichowdi, Sultanbazar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to quash the Docket order dated 30.01 .2024 passed by Ld. Vll ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED Judrcial Magistrate First Class Magistrate in STC Nl No.132 I of 2024 and restore the present case from its regular Calendar Case r.e., CC N lrlo.67 of 2024 to its original STC Nl No.1 325 of 2023 and to proceed thereafter zrs per law. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C. NI No.67 o:' 2024 on the file of Ld. Vll Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Manoranjan ()omplex, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above criminal petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petrtion under Section 528 of BNSS praying that r1 the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to extend the order of stay granted on 2111)12024 of all further proceedings in C C. Nl No.67 of 2024 (STC Nl No 1325 o'2O23) on the file of Ld. Vll Judicial [\,4agistrate First Class, at Manoranjan ()omp ex, Hyderabad pending drsposal of the above criminal petition. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Clminal Petltion the High Court may be pleased to extend the order of stay granted on 21 .1).2024 of all further proceedings in C.C. Nl No.65 of 2024 on the file of Ld. V I Judicial Magistrate First Class, at lvlanoranjan Complex, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above criminal petition. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12595 OF 202,1 Between Sri. R. Narender, S/o. Late R. Pentaiah, Age No 3-2-645. Rahmathbagh, Beside Om Kachrguda, Hyderabad - 500 027. .50 years. Occ. Sai Res rclency, Busrness, H. Barkatpura, ...PETITIOI{ER/COMPLAINANT AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Procecutor H'rderabad. ...RESPONDENT Sri. Kayathi Srihari, S/o Late Muralidhar, Age 48 years, Occ Govt. Service, P"q,lty- .Director of Medical Human ServiEe, H.- No '1-6-43131/2, Mutyam Reddy Nagar, Kanajiguda, Secundarabad 500 0'15 (lV) l:t09140830 and btso at Sri. Kayathi Srihari, S/o. Late Muralidhar, age 48 year;. Occ. Govt. Service, Deputy Director of Medical Human Service, Directdrate of Public Health and FW, 4-5-802, Kasinath Vaidya Marg, 3rd Floor, Badi:irowdi, Sultanbazar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED 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 quash the Docket order dated 30101/2024 passed by Ld. Vll Judicial Magistrate First Class Magistrate in STC Nl No.1275 of 2024 and restore the present case from its regular Calendar Case i.e., CC Nl No.65 of 2024 to its original STC Nl No.1275 of 2023 and to proceed thereafter as per law and pass l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC Nl. NO. 65 ot 2024 (STC Nl No. 1277 o'f 2023), on the file of Vll Judicial Magistrate First Class, at f\/anoranjan Complex, Hyderabad till the disposal of Crl.P. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 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 extend the order of stay granted on 21 .10.2024 of all further proceedings in C C. Nl No.65 of 2024 on the file of Ld. VII Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above criminal petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 extend the order of stay granted on 2111012024 of all further proceedings in CC Nl. No. 65 of 2024 (STC Nl No. '1275 of 2024), on the file of Learned Hon'ble Vll Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad pending disposal of the main CrlP. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. Dhananjay Chavan, Advocate for the Petitroner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. '1 and of none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKP.R.AMJI CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.12586 12590 & 12592 & 12595 of 2024 COMMON ORDER I have heard Mr. Dhanan.lay Chavan, learned :ounsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Ad,litional Public Prosecutor, appearrng on behalf of respondent No. 1-Stater.

2. ln all these petitions, the petitioner, who is the complainant, seeks prosecution of respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referre(l to as 'the Nl Act').

3. Since the petitioner raises an identical legal issue in each of these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4 Criminal Petition No. 12595 ot 2024 has beer filed under Section 528 of the Bharatrya Nagarlk Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS'), seekrng quashment of the Docket Order dated

30.01 .2024 passed by the Court of the Vll Judicial firla Jistrate of First Class, Hyderabad, in S.T C N.l. No. '1275 of 2023. Criminal Petition No.'12586 ot 2O24 is filed under Sectir:n 528 of the BNSS for quashment of the Docket Order dated 30.O1 2024 passed by 2 \TR..J Cdp l2-86 202+ & bat.h the Vll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad in STC Nl No 1277 of 2023 Criminal Petition No.12592 ot 2024 is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashment of the Docket Order dated 30.01 .2024 passed by the Vll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad in STC NI No. l325 of2023. Criminal Petition No.12590 ot 2024 is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short'BNSS, 2023') for quashment of the Docket Order dated 30.01 .2024 passed by the VII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad in STC Nl No.'1279 of

5. By the impugned orders, the learned Magistrate converted the Summary Trial Cases into Summons Cases and consequently renumbered them as Complaint Cases. The petitioner prays that the impugned orders be set aside and that the matters be restored to their original numbers, so that the proceedings may be conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed for Summary Trial Cases.

6. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had advanced a hand loan to respondent No.2 pursuant to promissory notes executed on 22.11.2019. ln discharge of the said liability, respondent No. 2/accused issued certain cheques drawn on UCO Bank, Koti Branch, Hyderabad. Upon presentation, the cheques were dishonoured 3 :ll R.,l ( lD i258i 202.1 & bat.h with the endorsement 'funds insufficient.' The statutory notice issued thereafter was returned with the endorsemerrt 'unclaimed.' Consequently, the complaints came to be registered as {iummary Trial Cases (STCs).

7. ln October 2023, lhe accused was examined, cluring which he denied the allegations. He contended that the petitionr:r was engaged in chit fund business and that, in the course of related chit transactions, fifteen cheques had been issued, which were misus;ed by being pressed into service in these complaints. The accused Further asserted that no statutory notice had been duly served upon hinr. He pleaded not guilty and requested a trial. B. On 30.01 .2024, respondent No. 2 filed deferce statements, whereupon the trial Court passed the impugned order <;onverting the proceedings and posting the case for regular trial. Agprrieved thereby, the petitioner filed applications seeking restoration of tl-e complaints to their original status as Summary Trial Cases. Hor.r,ever. the said applications were returned on 02.08.2024. Hence, the prersent petitions are filed, seeking quashment of the docket order dated 30.01 .2024 whereby the cases were converted from STC to C.C. for cletailed trial.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court, without examining any cogent material or recording valid reasons, I 4 l-tR.J Crlp l2aiJi) 202+ & )iitch mechanically converted the STCs into Complaint Cases (CCs). Such action, it is urged, runs contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Wit Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2020, ln Re. Expedittous Trial of Cases under Sectlon 138 of the N/ Acf, as well as the practice directions issued by this Court vide Circular No. 1112021 daled 21.06.2021 . It is further submitted that the trial Court failed to record the complainant's evidence or permit cross-examination on behalf of the accused, nor did it analyze the factual matrix of the case, an exercise mandatory before converting a summary trial into a regular summons trial. The learned counsel also points out that the Court below erroneously observed that there were four connected matters between the same parties, although no such defence was taken by the accused in his defence statement. Attention is drawn to the second proviso to Section '143 of the Nl Act, which stipulates that only where a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year may be imposed, or where it is otherwise considered undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate shall, after hearing the parties, record reasons and pass an order' No such statutory procedure has been followed in the present case- It is thus vehemently argued that the conversion of STCs into regular Complaint Cases undermines the statutory presumption of liability under Section '139 of the Nl Act and shifts the burden --a- .) \TR,.] pl)rar,2021&l)a((h improperly, thereby defeating the very objective o' prescribing summary trial for cases under Section 138 of the Nl Act. '10. I have perused the materials on record

11. The sole contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the trial Court, without following due process or adhering tc the practice guidelines, mechanically converted the Summary Trial C;ases (STCs) into Complaint Cases (CCs). lt is urged that sur;h orders are unsustainable in law.

12. fhe procedure for summary trials is designed i.o provide a simplified and expeditious mechanism for deahng with rn nor offences. Sections 260 to 265 of the Code of Criminat Procedurt:. '1973 (CrPC) govern the conduct of summary trials. These provision; empower the Chief Judicial lvlagistrate, Metropolitan lVlagistrate, M. gistrate of the First Class, and any A/agtstrate of the Second Olass specially empowered by the High Court, to try offences sumnrarily, provided such offences are punishable with fine or with imprisonment not exceeding six months under the BNSS, Broadly, summary trial jurisdiction exlends to petty offences which do not attract a sentence of imprisonment exceeding two years under the CrpC (thr:er years under the BNSS). lllustratively, such offences include petty tht;fl, receiving or retaining stolen property of value not exceeding Rs. 20ll under the 6 NTR.J Crlp 12a86 -2O2r & b.1L.l, CrPC (or Rs. 20,0001 under the BNSS), criminal intimidation, and certain other offences of a comparatively minor nature.

13. The process commences upon the filing of a First lnformation Report (FlR) or private complaint, followed by investigation and submission of a charge sheet. The accused is then brought before the Magistrate, who orally explains the accusations formal charges not being framed in summary trials. lf the accused pleads guilty, such plea is recorded and convrction follows. lf not, the prosecution, complainant, and defence are permitted to adduce their evidence. At this stage, if the Magistrate forms an opinion that the case ought not to be tried summarily, and instead requires conversion into a summons trial (CC), the law mandates that such opinion must be recorded with cogent reasons. The Magistrate's order must reflect satisfaction that the nature of the complaint, or the potential sentence likely to be imposed, exceeds the permissible limits of summary jurisdiction, or that for other compelling reasons, trial by summary procedure is undesirable.

14. lt is thus incumbent upon the Maglstrate to record sufficient and justifiable reasons for converting an STC into a summons case. This is not a matter of routine formality, but a judicial duty flowing from the statute. Conversion cannot be mechanical, but must be supported by reasons that demonstrate transparency, fairness, and application of mind. In ln Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the Nl -- 7 \TIi,J (r , ,,58b i02+&barch Act [Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2020] [12t)21) 76 SCC 116:2021 SCC OnLine SC 3251, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that the discretion vested in the Mag slrate must be exercised with due care and caution, and that a separale formal order, expressly recording reasons for conversion, is mandatory ln the absence of such reasons, subsequent proceedings a-e liable to be treated as irregular and potentially invalid.

15. Once such conversion is validly ordered, tlt€ case must thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with the summons trial procedure prescribed in Chapter XX of the CrPC. This rioludes putting questions of accusation to the accused under Secton 251 CrPC, recording detailed prosecution and defence evidence, et(amination of the accused under Sectron 313 CrPC, and affording opportunity of hearing to both sides. lmportantly, if any evidence ha; already been recorded under the summary procedure, the Magistrate must recall and re-examine such witnesses at the request of either party, so as to ensure that neither the complainant nor the accused suf ers prejudice.

16. The strict compliance with this procedure has reen reiterated by the Constitution Bench in ln Re Expeditious Trial of Cases under Seclion 138 of the Nl Act, 1881 (supra) At paragrzrph g of the judgment, the Court specifically observed that Sectron 11:t of the Nl Act was enacted to ensure speedy disposal of cheque dishorour cases. It NTR..I Crlp 12586 20-2.1 & batch was clarified that conversion of complaints under Section 138 from summary trial to summons trial has been routinely done by trial Courts without recording reasons, thereby frustrating the very obiect of the statute. The Court emphasized that the second proviso to Section '143 of the N I Act mandates the Magistrate to record an order, spelling out the reasons for such conversion, and cautioned that the discretion must be exercised with care, lest the legislative intent of speedy disposal be defeated.

17. This Court, in compliance with the above directives, issued CircularNo. 11of 2021 in R.OC. No. 1608/8012020da\ed21.06.2021 ' reiterating the mandatory requirement of recording reasons prior to conversion. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Circular direct that until the stage of denial of accusation under Section 251 CIPC, the case shall continue as a Summary Trial Case. Only thereafter, and upon due consideration of the nature of allegations, the possibility of imposition of higher punishment, or the existence of multiple connected proceedings, may the Court consider conversion into a regular Summons or Complaint case, provided cogent reasons are recorded.

18. ln the present case, the impugned docket orders converting the cases from STC to CC/Summons Case are devoid of any reasoning. They disclose no application of judicial discretion, nor compliance with the statutory mandate and the binding directions of the Hon'ble - C Supreme Court and this Court. The absence of reasons renders the orders rmproper, irregular, and legally unsustainable. '19 Accordingly, in the absence of any valid justrfication, these petitions merit acceptance, and the impugned orders z rc' liable to be set aside. Consequently, the impugned orders are qu rs;hed and the matters are restored to the stage of filing of defence statements by the accused. However, it is clarified that the question of co rversron of the proceedings into Complaint Cases (CCs) is kept open. The learned Magistrate, upon reconsideration of the materials on rer:ord, shall pass a fresh and reasoned order strictly in compliance with the prescribed procedural mandates, as contemplated in ln Re: Expeoitious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the Nl Act. 1881 and in Circ.rlar No. 11 of 2021 in R.O.C No. 160818012020 dated 21.06.2021 Siuch exercise shall be undertaken expeditiously, and thereafter the trr;rl shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.

20. Accordingly, Criminal Petition Nos 12586, 125)0 12592 and '12595 of 2O24 are allowed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL t'lEot tTV oEl:rQTo Ao //TRUE COPY// \ !\.r,o* oFFrcER To,

1. The VII Judicial f\/agistrate First Class Magistrate, [\4anoranlan Complex, at Hyderabad

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the S,tate of Telangana at Hydeabad.[OUT]

3. One CC to Sri N. Dhananjay Chavan, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copres HIGH COURT DATED: 2210812025 \ ,,/ t. ? tt |'lLU 2[6 li .l',2 i ('vrt-'f COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.12586, 12590, 12592 AND 12595 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONSi t\ ,/