M/s. Pattabhi Agro Foods Private Limited, Vs M/s. Laxmi Bhargavi Traders

M/S. PATTABHI AGRO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHAIK ABDUL SATTAR, S/O. LATE ALI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. MANAGER (LEGAL). IN COMPLAINANT COMPANY, O/c.VALUTHIMMAPURAM ROAD, PEDDAPURAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

M/S LAXMI BHARGAVI TRADERS, REP. ITS PROPRIETORS.LEELA JAYA SRI, R/O.H.NO. 6-295, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, SUCHITRA, QUTHBULLAPUR, HYDERABAD. STATE OF TELANGANA

¶13

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶15

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to Grant stay of all further proceedings of C.C.No. 605 of 2017 pending on the file of the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judges Court Kakinada, and pass

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶17

1.P RAJESH BABU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶19

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶20

2.K JOSEPH

¶21

2

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ has been filed, by the Petitioner/Complainant, seeking to set aside the Order, dated 14.12.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6110 of 2023 in CC No.605 of 2017, on the file of the court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

¶24

Heard Sri P.Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2/State and learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the material on record.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner/complainant filed petition before the Trial Court under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the authorised representative of petitioner/complainant-company i.e. PW1 for adducing further evidence and to receive the document/s, by condoning the delay. The Trial Court after hearing the both parties, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner observing that filing a series of petitions would delay the disposal of matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the order of the Trial Court in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner is contrary to the law. Learned counsel would finally submit that the Minutes of Board Meeting are with the Company Secretary of the Petitioner/ComplainantCompany in Hyderabad and it took time for them to obtain the same and therefore, the delay occurred is neither wilful nor wanton on the part of the 1. For short ‘the Code’

¶26

3

¶27

Petitioner and prayed that a fair opportunity may be given to the Petitioner to prove his case, in the interest of justice.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly conceded that any condition may be imposed on the Petitioner so that there would be an end to the litigation and would submit that this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶29

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that this Court may

¶30

pass appropriate orders.

¶31

Considering the submissions made, as rightly put by learned counsel for respondent No.1, filing petition after petition would definitely cause delay in disposal of the matter. However, a fair opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to present his case before the Trial Court. In that view, the present petition is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondent No.1, failing which this Petition shall stand dismissed. Learned trial Judge is directed to receive the documents and fix an earlier date for further examination of PW1 and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible according to law, without granting any further adjournment in a casual way by mere asking and inform the progress of the matter to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by 31.10.2025.

¶32