Allowed

Mr. Kikuri Satish Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Nov 2022CRLP/2833/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed by an accused to recall a complainant for limited cross-examination regarding documents marked in parallel complaints without the accused's prior opportunity to cross-examine.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the complainant on documents P7 to P16, limited to the issue of consent, with the trial court to complete this within two weeks.

Mr. Kikuri Satish Reddy Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2833, 2847 and 2849 of 2022

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.206 of 2017 on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that the 2^nd respondent herein had also filed three more complaints against the petitioner herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the same trial court and these complaints were numbered as C.C.185 of 2017, C.C.186 of 2017 and C.C.187 of 2017.

¶4

The 2^nd respondent has examined himself as P.W.1 in C.C.No.206 of 2017. After cross-examination of the 2^nd respondent was completed in C.C.No.206 of 2017, the evidence of the 2^nd respondent was recorded in C.C.No.185 of 2017, C.C.No.186 of 2017 and C.C.No.187 of 2017. In the course of recording the evidence in those three complaints, the 2^nd respondent is said to have marked certain documents as Ex.P7 to P16 in all the three complaints. Same set of documents are marked in the three complaints.

¶5

The petitioner had thereupon filed petitions under section 311 of Cr.P.C., i.e., (1) Crl.M.P.No.218 of 2021 for recall

¶6

¶7

of complainant/P.W.1 (2) Crl.M.P.No.219 of 2021 for receiving of certified copies of eleven documents filed along with petition (3) Crl.M.P. No.220 of 2021 for marking of documents and for the purpose of cross-examining the 2^nd respondent in relation to the documents, which were marked as Ex.P7 to P16 in the other three complaints.

¶8

The 2^nd respondent had opposed the said application. The trial Court vide order, dated 03.02.2022, dismissed the said applications on the ground that the application had been filed at the stage of the arguments and that no reasons have been given as to the purpose for which, the documents are sought to be marked. The trial court also agreed with the contention of the 2^nd respondent that the said documents would have to be produced through the petitioner and the same cannot be marked through the 2^nd respondent as P.W.1.

¶9

Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner had approached this court, by filing the present Writ petition.

¶10

Sri M. Naga Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to cross-examine the P.W.1 on these documents as the said documents were marked in the other three complaints

¶11

¶12

only after cross examination of P.W.1 had been completed in the present case.

¶13

Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would submit that the applications filed by the petitioner are an abuse of the process of the court and they were filed only for the purpose of delaying the conclusion of trial and proceedings of the case. She would submit that no reasons are given in the petition as to why the 2^nd respondent has to be cross-examined in relation to these documents and the view taken by the trial court in this aspect, need not be disturbed.

¶14

It is clear that the documents in question have been marked after the cross-examination of P.W.1 was completed and as such the petitioner did not have an opportunity to crossexamine the P.W.1 in this regard. Further, the petitioner obtained certified copies of these documents and requires to confront P.W.1 with the said documents.

¶15

Sri M. Naga Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner is not insisting upon an elaborate cross-examination of P.W.1 and that the only questions that would be put to P.W.1 in this regard is whether P.W.1 had consented for marking of these documents in other three complaints.

¶16

¶17

In view of the fact that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 on these documents for the reasons given above, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to cross examine P.W.1 on this aspect.

¶18

Accordingly, the petition is allowed subject to the condition that the cross-examination of P.W.1 shall be restricted to the documents, which have been marked as Exs. P7 to P16 in C.C.185 of 2017 to C.C.187 of 2017 in the very same Court and the questions posed to P.W.1 shall be restricted to the aspect of whether P.W.1 had consented to the marking of those documents in those three criminal cases.

¶19

For this purpose, the trial Court shall complete the cross examination of P.W.1 by the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order and both the Petitioner and the 2^nd respondent shall cooperate in this regard.

¶20

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶21

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶22

14.11.2022 MNR

¶23

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 2833, 2847 and 2849 of 2022

¶26

14.11.2022

¶27

MNR.

Mr. Kikuri Satish Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kikuri Satish Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Tarimala Chalapathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jangala Anil Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jangala Anil Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kikuri Satish Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kikuri Satish Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Thalluri Suresh Vs The State Andhra Pradesh