Dismissed

Smt. v.Rajanishri v. Sri K.Ramesh

Telangana HC23 Jan 2013CRLRC/2177/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the Special Magistrate's order allowing the complainant to recall himself to mark documents. The court found no illegality in permitting the evidence to rebut the accused's denial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order approving recall of PW1 for marking documents and imposing costs of Rs.500 is upheld.

Smt. v.Rajanishri Vs Sri K.Ramesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2177 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This revision is directed against the order dated 16.10.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.2236 of 2012 in C.C.No.111 of 2011 on the file of the II Special Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Rangareddy District whereby and whereunder the learned Special Magistrate allowed the application filed by the complainant-first respondent to recall PW1 for the purpose of marking the documents.

¶5

The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.111 of 2011 on the file of the II Special Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Rangareddy District. Petitioner is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The Petitioner-accused while being examined as RW1 disputed of executing sale deed infavour of Vimal Raj Madhur. Thereupon the respondentcomplainant filed Crl.M.P.No.2236 of 2012 to recall himself for marking the registered documents executed by him and the accused. The said application has been resisted by the accused. The learned Special Magistrate on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the complainant can be permitted to mark the documents and delay in filing the documents can be condoned on payment of costs of Rs.500/- and thereby proceeded to allow the application by order dated 16.10.2012. Hence, this revision.

¶6

Heard Sri S.Ravichander, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and learned counsel appearing for the respondentcomplainant.

¶7

It is contended by the learned senior counsel that the first respondent-complainant has not offered any explanation for not filing the documents at the time of examining himself as PW.1 and even the order

¶8

passed by the trial Court does not reflect of any reasons for allowing the petition. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that the petitioner is seriously disputing the documents which are sought to be received and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set-aside.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-complainant submits that the first respondent-complainant suggested to the petitioneraccused while being examined as RW1 about the execution of documents. RW1 denied of the execution and therefore, it compelled the respondentcomplainant to file an application to recall himself to mark the registered documents. Learned counsel took me to the relevant portion of the cross examination of RW1-V.Rajanisri and it is thus:

¶10

“I don’t understand English. I know the contents of affidavit. Since 1997 I have residing in Hyderabad. I did not give my plot for development. It is not true to say that, I gave my plot to K.R.Interior Constructions for development in 2004. I have constructed apartment in my plot. I sold one flat to Mr. Vimal Raj Madhur under registered sale deed. It is not true to say that myself and K.R.Interiors execute sale deed in favour above person. I sold flat to Dr. Nirmala flat G-3 in the year 2004 under registered sale deed.”

¶11

I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The learned Special Judge exercised his discretion and proceeded to allow the application to recall PW1 for the purpose of marking two registered sale deeds by imposing costs of Rs.500/-. The petitioner-accused while being examined as RW1 denied of her executing documents along with the complainant. The respondent-complainant, to rebut the same, intends to mark the very documents executed by him along with the petitioneraccused. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.

¶12

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶13

JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶14

23^rd January, 2013

¶15

Vjl/gkv

Smt. v.Rajanishri v. Sri K.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v.Rajanishri v. Sri K.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apuri ( Originally Yepuri ) Sambasiva Rao Vs The State of Ap.

Malisetti Venkata Narasimha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Borella Arjun , Babu Vs The State of Ap.

A.Naga Padmavathi Vs State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

Aedukondalu Venkatesham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rakesh Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh