The High Court · 2025

Employee, P_!olt!o_49, Vijay Durganagar Cotony, Back of Om Sai'Hospitat, Keshavgiri.(P-O.) Qalapur Mandal, Hyderabad. Presenfly residing at H.No.B- 90, Ground Floor, Sri Sai Nagar Colciny, Phase 1, Road-No.3, K6shavgiri (P.0), Balapur Mandal, Hyderabad -S00 00S. ...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 order daied 12-12-2024 in Crl.tr[p.No. 2B1S\2O22 in C.C.No. 508612022 on the file of V Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad and direct the trial court to hear the arguments of either party in the main case without any delay and dispose the case is early as possible in the interest of justice. F 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petitipn, the High Court may be pleased to stay all, further proceedings in Crl.M.p.No. .281512022 in C.C.No.5086/2022 on the file of V Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad U/Sec 200 Cr.P.C during pendency of criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M ACHUTA REDDY, AdVOCAIE fOr the Petitioner and JITHENDER RAo VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Gourt made the following: ORDER i i I l : : i I / IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PBTITTON No.15796 of 2025 Date: 15.12.2025 Between Zaddu Sudhakar AI{f) .Petitioner The State of Telarrgana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another ...Respondents Qrder This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated

12.12.2024 passed in Crl.lM.P.No.28l5 of 2022 in C.C.N.I.No.5086 of 2022 on the file of the V Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, t{yderabad, and to consequently direct the trial Court to hear the arguments of both parties in the main case without any fuither delay and dispose o[the satne as expeditiously as possible.

2. Heard MI'.D.Subramanyaln, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l and I\4s.B.Kavitha Yadav, leanted counsel for respondent No.2. .\_ \ ..', . .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner lodged a complaint against respondent No.7, invoking the provisions under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under S.ection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. At the stage of defence evidence, respondent No.2/accused filed an application seeking recall of PW.l for cross-examination. The petitioner filed a detailed counter denying the averments made in the said applicartion. However the learned Magistrate, without properly considering rhe contentions raised by the petitioner, allowed the said application by order dated

12.12.2024. Accordingly, Pw.l was recalled by reopenirrg the case for further cross-examination, subject to the condition that respondent No.2 shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner and shall complete the cross-examination of the said witness on the next date of hearing. In the event of failure to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the petition shall stand dismissed.

3.1. He vehemently contended that respondent No.2 has not complied with the two conditions imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the trial court ought to have proceeded with the matter in accordance with law. on the other hand, adjouming the case from time to time and permitting further cross-exalnination of the petitioner/PW.l. He firrther submitted that respondent No.2 filed the present application despite having already / / ::3:: cross-examined the petitioner at length after changing seven counsel, and the present application has been filed after engaging another counsel. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside. [n support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AG v. Shiv Kumar Yadav and anothert.

4. Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 is ready and willing to comply with the conditions imposed by the trial Court. However, PW.l did not appear before the trial Court to face cross-examination, and the matter underwent several adjoumments at the instance of the petitioner only. She further submitted that respondent No.2 is ready to proceed with the cross- examination of PW.l by complying with the condition of paying costs of Rs.2,000/- on the next date of hearing before the trial Court, i.e., on

18.12.2025, artd respondent No.2 is ready and willing to cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the case before the Trial Court.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner filed a private complaint invoking the provisions of Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offenc.e punishable under Section 138 1 Crl.A.Nos. I I 87- I | 8tl ol'201 5. datcd I 0.09.201 5 \ \ ::4:: of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The record further reveals that respondent No.2 filed an application, namely crl.M.p"No.2gl 5 of 2022 invoking the provisions of Section 3l I of the crr.p.c., seeking permission to reopen the case for further cross-examination of pW.l- The trial Court, after considering the contentions rtf' the respective parties, allowed the said application by order dated 12.12.2024. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "ln the result the petition is allowed and pW.l is t.e<.tllatl by reopening lhe c,aseforfurther cross examittation, bur hov,evet sub"iecr io condilion thut the petitioner shall pa.y costs oJ'Ri.2.000./- (kqee.t Two T-housand only) to the respondent/complainantr'pw.l anclfurthit. he shall complete the cross examination of the said u,ilness hy ihr: nc.rr date of hearing. F'ailure to comply any of the condition.t tlrc pelititt,t di.smis.sed. " 'ruruls

6. upon perusal of the e-court docket proceedings, it reveals that subsequent to the disposal of the aforesaid application, rhc matter before the trial courl was posted to 2t.01.2025. o\ 21.01.2025. both parties, namely the petitioner and respondent No.2, were absent, and the petitions filed under Sections 256 and 3r7 of the cr.p.C. were allowed. The matter was thereafter posted to 25.02.2025 for cross-examination of Pw.l. on 25.02.2025, respondent No.2 was absent, and the petition filed under Section 317 of the cr.p.c. was allowed, posted the matter to 28.03.2025 for cross-examination of pw.l. on 2s.03.2025, both parties were present, and the matter was poste d to 22.04.2025, finally, for cross_ examinati on offr.l. on 22.04.2025, the complainant u,as present and 7 the accused was absent and the petition filed under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the matter was posted finally to 02.05.2025 for cross-examination of PW.l. On 02.05.2025, the complainant was absent and there was no representation for the accused, however, the accused reported readiness for cross-examination of PW.1, and the maffer was posted lastly to 27.06.2025 for cross-examination of PW.t. On

27.06.2025, the complainant was absent, while thb accused was present along with counsel and the petition filed under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the matter was posted to 29.08.2025 for cross- examination of PW.l, subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/- to the accused. On 29.08.2025, both the complainant and the accused were absent, and the petition filed under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed, and posted the matter to 10.10.2025 for cross-examination of PW.l. On 10.10.2025, both parties were absent, and as the Presiding Officer was on.training, the matter was posted to 14.11.2025. On

14.11.2025, the complainant was absent, while the accused was present along with counsel. The complainant was directed to appear on the next date of hearing to face further cross-ex{ilnination, failing which adverse orders would be passed against him, and the matter was posted to _( l

18.12.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Petition on 28.11.2025, challenging the impugned \

2.6:: ^ti order dated 12.12.2024, passed by the trial Court, after a lapse of more than eleven months

7. tn AG supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated the limits of the power under Section 3l I Cr.P.C., holding that though the provision confers wide discretion to recall witnesses at any slage, such power cannot be exercised mechanically. Recall is permissible only where the Court records cogent reasons demonstrating that it is essential for a just decision of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere change of counsel, allegations of ineffective cross-examination, or aftempts to fill lacunae do not justiff recall. It further emphasised that the concept of fair trial must balance the rights of the accused with the interests of the victim and society, and that recall at the fag end of trial causing delay or harassment of witnesses defeats the object of sper-'dy justice. On facts, the High Court's order allowing recall was set aside and the trial coult's refusal was upheld, as no prejudice to the accused rvas shown.

8. [n case on hand, the trial court, exercised of its discretion under Section 3 I I Cr.P.C., permitted recall of PW.l at an early stage, subject to costs and conditions. The record shows repeated adjournments and lack of cooperation by both parties, including the complainant's absence ,l I dates fixed for cross-examination. Further, the order dated allgving recall was challenged after an Unexplained delay of / -l 7 more than eleven months. Therefore, unlike AG supra, the recall here was neither sought at the tag end of the trial nor based on untenable r grounds, but was a discretionary order passed to advance substantial justice. Hence, the petitioner cannot rely on the said decision, as the facts, stage of proceedings, nature of offence, and reasons for recall are materially different.

9. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner/complainant as well as respondent No.2/accused shall appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.12.2025. Respondent No.2 shall comply with the conditions imposed by the trial Court in its order dated 12.12.2024 by paying costs of R.s.2,000/- to PW.l and shall also complete the cross-examination of PW.l on the same date. The V Judicial Magistrate of . First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyde'rabad, is directed to dispose of C.C.Nl.No.5086 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties are directed to cooperate for the speedy disposal of the case without seeking undue adjournments. In the event PW.l refuses to accept the costs as awarded by the trial Court, respondent No.2 and their counsel are 8: entitled to pay the same to the counsel appearing for the petitioner/PW'.1

10. Accorclingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed o1' Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / Lr. SECTTON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The V Judicial N/agistrate of First Class Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad 2. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT]

3. One CC to SRl. M ACHUTA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies DDN I f HIGH COURT JSRJ DATED i1511212025 tJ- o t-& ^.s + "9 /H+ ORDER CRLP.No.15796 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1