The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of crim,inar petition, tn" nbh d;il ;;; be pleased to sTAY all proceedings in sTC Nl No.216 of 2o22on the file of 1.t Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Xll Additionat Judiciat- rtlEiJir"te of First cla.99, Ranga Reddv district, at Rajendrrnrgii penoinj ai#;;i of criminar petition. or else petitioner/accused wi[l suffer g"r"r" inlusti"ce-a-riJ narosrrip which cannot be cornpensated. '1 : I i I I i i .:.. .r.jf '- .,:,:",, l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025: R/o'8-7- punna ,n,';[t.,:*,"&'o1lrni3li.3ff,t^*L,13?i?"f,'i3i""tii:'ffis' 6S,Padmasnllpurallr v.-'r,rt)I r'-'--- ...petitioneilznd Respondent o*? Denc, *"lq;13i1";:i,?,rr"th[,?,1i6[;tti #fl:$,fii'#'m; colony,Hasthtnapurallr' narrvq'\v--' Occtr.Busit ...RespondenUPetitioner 2TheStateofTelangana,RepbyitsPublicProsecutor,HighCourtfor the :;tate of relangana' "'Respondents\Respondents may be PetitionunderSection4S2o.fCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated -oro"" -court iotoltiozs passed in in the Memorandum of Grounds ;i'cHilai Fetition, i." High oteased to ,"""t"a the interiin -da,el"' I^:.".i"r'iozi;""::A in'Criminal Petition No- 5 of 2025 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition 'and upon nearing the arguments of Mr G SURESH GOUD,AdvocarteforthePetitionerandMrD.ARUNKUMAR,theAdditional public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No'1 and Mr DURGA PRASAD KOTAMRAJU,,\dvocatefortheRespondentNo'2 The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT T]OR THE STATE OF'TELAIIIGANA AT I{YDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJAIiTA CRIMINAL PEIITION No.OS OF 2O25 L2.12.20.25 Between : Dendi Madhukar Reddy Petitioner/Accused And The State of Telangana, R"p., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana & another Respondents ORDER This criminal petition is filed under Section S28 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhira, 2O2J by the petitioner/Accused aggrieved by the order dated 04.11 .2024 in crl.M.P.No.46L of 2024 in src NI.No.2t6 of 2022 on the file of I-Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-Xll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. -2- E--

2. Crl.M. P.No.46L of 2024 was filed by the complainant under secti,)n 143-A (1) (21 of Negotiable Instrument Act, seeking interim compensation to be paid by tJle accused. After hearing both sides, the trial court allowed the said application and directecl the accused to pay 2Oo/o of the cheque amount i.e., Rs.3,6O,OOC,l- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, this petitior, is filed by the petitioner/accused.

3. Hear<l Sri G.Suresh Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and Sri Durga Prasad Kotamra-ju, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that no reasons are assigned while allowing the said petition and the dt:fence of tJ:e petitioner-accused was not considered by the trial Oourt. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on t-he judgment in Rakesh Ranjan Shrirrastava V State of Jharkhandl, wherein it was observed that provision under Section 1.+3-A (1) of N.I.Act is discretionarJr and the provision is | (202414 S,upreme Court Cases 419 ,. -,i.;tr*r**- -3- directory and not mandatory. The word "maf used in the provision cannot be construed as "shall". The trial Court has discretion to allow or not to allow the petition and it has to record the reasons directing the accused to pay interim compensation., However, no reasons are assigned in the impugned order as such, requested this Court to set aside the same.

5. On the other. hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the trial Court observed that there is prima- facie case against the accused as he was already examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, and pleaded not guilty, as such, directed the petitioner herein to pay the amount to the complainant. Hence, there is no illegality in the order of triat Court and prayed to dismiss tJ:is petition. \ \

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, according to Rakesh Ranjan's case, white dealing with the petition under Section 143-A of N.l.Act, the trial Court has to consider the defence of accused also, whereas in the impugned order, the trial Court observed that the defence of the accused will be taken at the time of trial but -4- :: not at the stage of the said petition and it has not considered the defence of accused and no reasons are recorded in the impugned order. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 04.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.461 of 2024 in STC NI.No.216 of 2022 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-XII Aclditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to dispose of the said petition after hearing both sides and also by considering the defence of petitioner/accused. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stancl closed. SD'. P.C.SULEKHA DEVi ISTANT REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY// N OFFICEii To, 1 The 1't Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Xll Additional Judiciai Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy district, at Rajendranagar 2 The Station House Officer, Mailerdevpally Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to IMr. G SURESH GOUD, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Mr DURGA PRASAD KOTAMRAJU, Advocate [OPUCI 6. Two CD Copies r> R('/Sa t ( ,t IHE S 1 I Il:8 2rp6 7: I * HIGH COU DATED: 1211212025 ORDER CRLP.No.5 ot 2025 Accordingly, this Criminal Pet ition is o \ * .J,