The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S. LAKSHMI KANTH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri SUREPALLI PRASHANT, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. I and of Slri V- Venkatarma Narasiah Advocate for the Respondent No.2 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15310 OF 2024 Between: Eedha Vigneshwar, S/o. Eedha Krishna, Aged 36 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o,1- '0, Boduppal, Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONER/ Petitioner/ Respondent AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad Telangana. .. RespondenU RespondenURespondent

2. Eedha Usha Rani, Wo.Eedha Vigneshwar, Aged 33 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.18-488/3, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Malkajgiri, lr/edchal-Malkajgiri District. ...RESPONDENT/ RespondenU Petitioner 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 proceedings in dated 19.08.2024 in Crl.l\/.P.No.79 of 2024 in M.C.No.77 o'f 2018 passed by Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge- cum-Family Court, tt/ledchal-Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri, consequently allow Crl.M.P.No.79 oI 2024 in M.C.No.77 of 2018 in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in M.C.No.77 of 2018 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition in the interest of justice. This Petition caming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S. LAKSHIVI KANTH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI SUREPALLI PRASHANTH Asst Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri V. VENKATRAM NARSAIAH, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following Common Order : THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.15297, 15319 and 15310 OF 2024 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No.15297 of 2024 is hled rrnder Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS) by petitioner to quash the proceedings alJainst him in CrI.M.P.No.77 of 2024 in M.C.No.77 of 201.8 datei 19.O8.2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District and Ser;sions Judge- cum-Family Court, Medchal- Malkaj giri District at J'lalkaj giri

2. Criminal Petition No. 153 19 of 2024 is filed rLnder Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhi-a (for short 'BNSS) by petitioner to quash the proceedings a1;ainst him in Crl.M.P.No.78 of 2024 in M.C.No.77 of 2OIa datetl 19.O8.2024 on the hle of the Hon'ble Principal District and Ses sions Judge- cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at L{alkaj giri.

3. Criminal Petition No.153 10 of 2024 is filed rnder Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit a (for short tsNSS) by petitioner to quash the proceedings against him in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2024 in M.C.No.77 of 2Ot8 date<l t9.08.2O24 2 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge- cum- Family Court, Medchal-Malkaj giri District at Malkaj giri,

4. For the purpose of reference, facts in Crl.P.No. 15297 of 2024 are taken

5. The Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court at Medchal-Malkajgiri passed an order, dated L9.O8.2024 in Crl.M.P.Nos.77,78 and 79 ol 2024 in M.C.No.77 of 2018, which is as follows:- "In the instant case the petitioner/ respondent has not filed ang application to set aside the ex parte order dated 18.08.2022 within three (O3) months from the date of said order and all the aboue applications referred filed bg the petitioner/ respondent on 13.02.2023 and 05.03.2024 are dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner/ respondent and these applications are filed on 10.04.2024 and in such circumstances the contention on behalf of the respondent/ petitioner that the petitioner/ respondent is intentionallg dragging on the proceedings is found tenable. Further no sufficient grounds are shotun bg the petitioner/ respondent to set aside the order dated 18.08.2022 closing hi-s euidence and since the aboue applications are not filed u.tithin three (O3) , J months from the date of the ex parte orde. dated_ 18.08.2022 that there are no merits in the aboue applications and theg are liable to be disinissed_. The point is answered accordingly,,.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that order, dated 19.0g.2024 is bereft of reasons and is not a just decision. It is further st bmitted that Apex Court in Manju Deui a. State of Rajusthan and. anotherl has laid down the principle that length c f duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of a j ust deiision. It is also contended that the age of a case cannot te desist the matter, when prayer is made for examination of material witness. On the basis of the Apex Court juclllment, it is contended that an application under Section 3l 1 of Cr.p.C., is made, an adequate opportunity has to granted and that in .be the present case, the learned judge has in fact no- considered the aspect of providing an opportunity to revisit he ex parte order, dated LB.OB.2O22, so as to meet the endr; of justice. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the learned ' 1zos1 a scc 203 4 Single Judge in Madhusudan Shukla u. State of U.P. and. Anotherz 7 . It is submitted that the learned counsel, who was appearing on behalf of petitioner, was a close relative of respondent and that learned counsel had not informed petitioner/ respondent about the dismissai of the Crl.M.Ps on I9.O8.2O24. That it is for this reason, petitioner/respondent could not take timely steps to pursue the lega,l remedies available as per law. It is also submitted that trial Court has erred in not granting relief as prayed for, on the ground that an application has to be made within three months to set aside the ex-parte order and that the delay is 564 days arrd Crl.M.Ps filed earlier to reopen the written arguments were also dismissed.

8. It is contended that the dismissal of the earlier Crl.M.Ps does not havi: the bearing on CCO, that every application has to be viewed independently. Hence prayed for quashing of the order, dated 19.08.2024

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that petitioner has been dragging ' 2022 scc online All 4o9 ) the matter for more than six years, on one ground or the other. It is further submitted that petitioner filed two Crl. M. Ps on earlier occasions and both the applications were dismissed as not pressed on 13.02.2023 and 05.03.2024. It is srrbmitted that the facts in Manju d.eoi case (7 Supra) are not applicable to the present case.

10. Learned counsel has placed the reliance upon the judgment of learned single Judge in Rahul Darbari u. Arun Rumar Khobragade & Otherss. Relying uprtn the said judgment, it is submitted that the delay in hling an application under Section 311 of CPC is one of the important factors and the delay has to be explained in the application. Tlrat no proper explanation 1S forthcoming for the delay of 5i64 days 1n preferring the criminal petition (against the order dated

18.O8.2022\. T. earned counsel invited the attention of this Court to paragraph No.21 of the judgment and conten<led that this Court cannot exercise its discretionary jurisdictiorr as there is an inordinate delay.

11. Heard learned counsel. Considered the subrnissions and perused the record. r 2024 SCC Online Del 2523 6

12. Petitioner was married to respondent No.2 on 27.O2.2015. An application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance was filed before the Family Court at L.B.Nagar When this Court queried, as to whether any maintenance was granted, it is submitted by both the counsels on record that no orders are passed till date. Domestic Violence Case No.77 of 2018 is pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Metropolitan Magistrate. Petitioner filed Crl.M.Ps on earlier occaslons for Iiling of written arguments, after the common order, dated 19.O8.2024, another Crl,M.P., was filed. Crl.M.Ps came to be dismissed as not pressed. Present miscellaneous petitions are filed to reopen the evidence closed on 18.08.2022 and rejected by the Principal District & Sessions Judge. When this Court queried whether the revision petitioner entered the witness box, it is stated that revision petitioner has not entered the witness box and order, dated 18.08.222 was an ex-parte order. There is 564 days delay 1n preferring this criminal petition.

13. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case and the submissions of the counsel for preferring the criminal petitions 7 with delay, this Court is of the opinion that inte -est of justice would be met, if the petitioner be permitted an r pportunity to present evidence in support of his case essential for deciding the case. Both the parties to a proceeding shr uld be given opportunity to present their case and defend. In tee absence of such opportunity, prejudice would be caused.

74. This Court is inclined to allow the petition with costs of Rs.25,O0O/- to be paid bypetitioner. The costs sLall be paid to respondent No.2 by way of Demand Draft or a bankers Cheque within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt rf this order.

15. It is made clear that a memo shall be filed into the trial Court of payment by petitioner and receipt of the amount by respondent No.2 . Needless to state that only on receipt of amount by respondent No.2, the trial Court is perrnitted to take up the proceedings and permit the petitioner hert in to present evidence in support of his case. On an applicatio n in the trial Court, the Court shall consider the evidence and shall dispose of the case, as expeditiously as possible, prefera bly, within a period of 6 months. This Court is conscious of tht: fact that no time limit can be hxed by this Court, as the priorit./ of the cases t ( 8 listed before the trial Court would be disturbed. Maintenance Case No.77 is of 2018, pending for more than 7 years, no orders are passed for grant of maintenance, this aspect cannot be lost sight of

16. For the reasons stated above, criminal petition Nos.15297, 153 19 and 153 1O of 2024 are allowed and the order, dated 19.O8.2O24 is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall 'stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- V. KAVITHA EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I Malkajgiri District To 1. The Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum- F Z. iio i6s to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at a. oie cc to sRl. s. LAKSHMI KANTH, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CG to SRI.V. VENKATARAM NARSAIAH, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD CoPies ily Court, Medchal- Hvderabad (OUT) V kul/gh I I HIGH COURT DATED:26/03/2025 L C q :) e \\ STAT€ o 1t Jt\\ 1m 'z (\ L' .at COMMON OROER CRIMINAL PETIT ION Nos 15297 '15319 and 15310 0F 2024 , \ ..-,:-::-' ALLOWtNCi .fIIF, CRL.PIl IITIoNS 4 t'f\ nA U t i I I