Sangam Raghuveer Goud Vs M.Laxman Yadav

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayin.gthatinthecircumstances stated in^{the Memorandr#"tb-.*4.ot CtitninutFetition, the HighCourt may} be oleased^{to quashtne orOer.-aai"d21-06-2018 made in Crl'M'P' No 1250 of} ;.,t#"&n"l;;;^{zore'.; trc rir" or the Hon'bte X specialMagistrate, at} Hyderabad.

¶16

l. .NO:1OF²⁰¹⁸

¶17

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the^{Memorandr.-or c-r-o*6"ot cririnut Fetition, the HighGourt^may} be pleased^{to Stay att turtnJr pt"o"-Oi"g1} ?S.a.insJ^{the petitioner in CC'No'28of} 2018 on the fite^{ot ft,e ion'[re ispe-ciat -uagistrate, at Hyderabad pending} disposal of the^{Criminalpetition.}

¶18

I.A. N oF2 18

¶19

Petition under section 482 of^{cr.P .c prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the Highcourtmay} be pleased to extend^{the stay granted on 06-09-2018 in crl.P.No.6732 of 2018in} cc.trto.zeof20lsonthefileofXSpecialMagistrateatHyderabadpending disposal of the main Petition'

¶20

.A" NO F 2018

¶21

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum "r crouna"-"i c",.i#iili '"etition, the High court may be pteased to extend the stay granted ""ro.i'iilora in crr.p.No.67 32t2o1. in CC.No.2Bl2018 on the fite of the]i sp!"iJ r,rr"si"iiiL at nyoerabaa.

¶22

.A O:1 F 19

¶23

Petition under Section .4g2 0I cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Ground. "t C-ri,ii"li 'pgtitlol_tf,e High Courr may be preased to extend the s-tay granted o" so-ii-)6ia in crr.p.No.6732 of 2018 in r',r1 g i, i,., t.,t 1{ ;1;; ;"" 0, ;"t#^:r' : #'"] :;il H"l'l'J:y''-^{i *i or} "^{i' i p"i i} ",

¶24

l.A. NO: 50F 2019

¶25

Petition under Section 4gZ of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Ground" "i c1i'Ii.ri p.tition_, the High court may be preased to extend the. stay granted o"l)ogzorg in rA 4 0f 2019 in cRLp No.6732t2o18 in c.c.28/2o1a;" *;-ilt"';;,;. X Speciat Masistrate ar Hyderabad pending disposat or t" rn"in p"ii;i.;. "'

¶26

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition unU^"rp* iearing the arguments of sri B satish' Advocate for the petitioner and sri r.t-axmi Narayana, representing sri MAK Mukheed, Advocate for the Respondent No.1, and sri M.vivekananda Reddy, Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

l-

¶29

THE^{HONOURABLESRI JUSTTCEJ' SREENTVAS RAO} CRIMI^{NALPETITION No. 6732 of 20La}

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Thiscriminalpetitionhasbeenfiledbythepetitioner/accused aggrieved^{by the order passedby the learned' X Special Magistrate'} Hyderabad,^{in CrI M P'Nos1250 and 1252 of 2O18 in C'C'No28 of} 2018, dated^{2lO6'2lla,where-underthe learnedMagistrate allowed} the^{petitions filedby respondent No 1/complainantseekingto reopen} and reca1l^{PWs' 1 and 3 for furtherevidenceand to receiveand mark} the documents,^{whichare frled along with the petitions'}

¶32

Heard^{Mr' B' Satish' learnedcounsel for the petitioner' and} Mr.T.LaxmiNarayana,learnedcounsel,representingMr.M.A.K. resPondent^{No 1,} and counsel^for Mukheed,^learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor} ReddY,^learned Mr. M.Vivekananda appearing^{for respondent No'2 State'}

¶33

Learned^{counsel for the petitionersubmitterl that in C'C No'28} of 2018,^{PWs.l to 3 were examined and Exs P' 1 to P'8 documents} were marked^{and the evidence of the respondentNo' 1/ complainant} as well^{as the petitioner/accusedwas closedand whenthe matter} was posted^{for arguments, respondentNo' 1 herein filed petitions} seeking^{reopeningof the case and recall PWs'1 and 3 for the purpose} of their^{furtherevidence and marking of documents and the sameis}

¶34

2

¶35

not permissible under law. However, the learned Magistrate, without properly considering the contentions of the petrtioner, erroneously allowed the petitions, by its order dated 21.O6.201g. Hence, the rmpugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be set zrside

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 /complainant submitted that the learned Magistrate by giving cogent reasons allowed the petitions with costs and respondent No. t has paid the costs. By virtue of the impugned order, no prejudice rvould bc caused to the petitioner and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the materrial available on record, it reveals that respondent No.1 filed a private complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under SecLions 13g and 742 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1gg 1, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.2B of 201g. In the said case, respondent No.1 filed petitions i.e., crl.M.p.Nos.1250 and. 12s2 of 201g, for recalling PWs.1 and 3 for lhe purpose of further evidence and to receive and mark the documents as exhibits on their behalf. In the said petitions, respondent No.1 specifically mentioned that his earlier

/

./'

J

counsel⁰ⁿ recorcl has^{failed to bring al1 the relevantfactsand} docum'ents before the^{Court below and for effective adjudicationof} the matter,^{recalling of PWs land 3 and marking of documentsrs} very much^{required,and by virtue of recalling PWs land 3 and} receiving^{and marking of the documents' no prejucliceis going to be} caused^{to the petitioner'The iearned Magistrate after considering} the contentions^{of the respectiveparties allowed the petitionsby} imposing^{costs of Rs'1,OOO/- in each petition by giving reasons'}

¶42

\

¶43

I,t is^{pertinentto mention that responden[No 1 ought to have} produced^{the documentsduring the courseof evidence of PWs land} 3andtherearelatchesonthepartofrespondentNo.landhehas not prosecuted^{the proceedingsdiligently'The specificcontentionof} respondent^{No. 1 is that his earlier counseldid not brought all the} facts and^{failed to lile ali the documents' though the same hadbeen} handed^{over to him' It is trite law thatclue to the mistake on the} part of the^{counsel, party should not be suffer' The trial Court while} allowing^{the petitions rightly heid that the petitioneris entitled to} cross.examine^{PWs.1 and 3. Hence, this Court is of the viewthat the} petitioner^{isentitledtoraise ail the objections inrespect of} admissibility^{of the documentsduring the course of further evidence} ol PWs. I^{and 3.}

¶44

4

¶45

It is already stated supra that respondent No.1 also not diligent in prosecuting the proceedings before the trial Court. However, to render substantial justice and also to balance the equities to both the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the costs imposed by the learned Magistrate is enhanced to Rs.2,500/, in each petition, in addition to the costs, which was already imposed by the learned Magistrate.

¶46

With the above said modification, the criminal petitlon IS disposed of and respondent No. 1 IS directed to pay costs of Its.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand hve hundred only) in each petition, in addition to the costs as awarded by the learned Magistrate, to thc petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The learnecl Magistrate is directed to dispose of the main case i.e., C.C.No.2g of 2o18, as expeditiously as possible and both the partics are clirected [o cooperate for disposal of the case without seeking undue adjournments.

¶47

Miscellaneous applications, pending if arry, shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/. A PRATHIMA. DEPUTY REG]STRAR

//TRUE COPYII

a-_

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad

¶54

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 4.3. Two r ne urarton CCs to House^pubtic prosecutor, Officer. Begum Bazar High Court policsstation, f;1d4.;i; of HyderabadTetangana at Hyderabad [OUTj

¶55

.5. Pn. 99 i" lri-q^{Saush, Advocate} [opUC] WI One CC to Sri M A K Mukheed, Advtcate JbeUCl Two CD Copies

¶56

:. ...- -. ..:::::a:ia!ffirr:_:Xqi.:&!,rrr;ii6ir!,r-i," 1..{F _-,; * --. ,ynri_u.."€-'!!a

l_

HIGH COURT

DATED: lOtOgtzO2S

ORDER