Allowed

Bade Nagi Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC27 Aug 2014CRLP/7985/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order sets aside the trial court's refusal to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C in a cheque dishonour case. The court allowed the recall petition subject to the petitioner paying Rs. 500 costs to the witness.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19.10.2012 set aside; the record to be restored for recall of PW-1; Petitioner to pay Rs. 500 costs.

Bade Nagi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶2

Criminal _Petition No.7985 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Petition is filed to quash the Order dated 19.10.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.1229 of 2012 in C.C.No.109 of 2012 on the file of V Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, whereunder the trial court refused to recall PW.1 for further cross examination.

¶5

Heard Advocate for the petitioner.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent herein filed C.C.No.109 of 2012 for alleged offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and that the second respondent was examined as PW.1 and he was cross examined on 29.08.2012 and 04.09.2012, subsequently it is noticed that some documents have to be put to PW.1 in order to prove the defense of the petitioner, for that reason, he filed a Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking recall of PW.1 for further cross examination, but, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to mention the details of the documents and the relevancy of them. He submitted that if details are disclosed, no purpose would be served in cross examination and if some time is fixed, the petitioner is ready to complete the cross examination provided the complainant cooperates.

¶7

I have perused the material papers filed along with the quash petition. As seen from the Counter filed by the complainant to the recall petition, it is objected on technical grounds and one of the ground was that earlier costs imposed by the court were not paid.

¶8

Considering the facts of the case, nature of offence, and the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, I feel that the trial court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner for further cross examination. No prejudice would be caused to the other side if the complainant is allowed to cross examine further. Because of dismissal of this Petition, the trial in C.C.No.109 of 2012 could not be proceeded further, and case is still pending because of this quash petition. For these reasons, the impugned Order dated 19.10.2012 is set aside and the petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the witness-PW.1 by the petitioner herein and the petitioner shall cross examine the witness on the same day when he was produced before the Court and complete it and cooperate with the trial court for disposal of the main case.

¶9

With these observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the trial court

¶10

shall decide the main case on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this Order.

¶11

_____________________ S. RAVI KUMAR, J

¶12

August 27, 2014

¶13

eha

Bade Nagi Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bade Nagi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dandu Sreedevi, Vs Dandu Srinu

V.Rama Chandra Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Kishore Kumar Vs State of a.P., through Inspector of Police

N.S.Phani Kumar, Vs M. Rama Krishna

Mohd. Ahmed, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Kali Dasu, Vs P.Sridhar