JUDGMENT

G.Sri Devi, J. - The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order, dated 10.08.2018, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2025 of 2018 in New C.C.No.116 of 2017 on the file of the XXV Special Magistrate at Hyderabad, wherein an application filed by the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant to receive certain documents was allowed.

2. As seen from the record, the 2nd respondent/complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.2025 of 2018 seeking to receive certain documents annexed to the petition. The averments in the said petition discloses that the 2nd respondent/complainant filed the above Calendar Case on the premise that the impugned cheques were issued in discharge of legally enforceable liability arising out of an agreement for sale of flat. As the sale agreement in question was not performed, construction of flat did not take place and as the revision petitioners/accused were not discharging their obligation as agreed upon and even started executing another agreement of sale in respect of the very same property to others, the 2nd respondent/complainant, who was made to part with huge money, compelled to make the complaint to police. Thereafter, the matter was resolved and the revision petitioners/accused have executed a document dated 10.08.2016 to the effect that sale agreement was cancelled and that cheques were issued. It is stated that the 2nd respondent/complainant did not file the said document as it was not disputed at any time. Further, while DW.1 was being cross-examined, several false statements were made deliberately and to falsify the same, the present documents are required to be filed. The revision petitioners/accused themselves have executed the document cancelling the agreement and have issued cheques with additional amount that was agreed to be paid to the 2nd respondent/complainant and those cheques were bounced on due presentation. As such, the documents in question are required to be confronted to D.W.1. The said documents were not readily available as the same were mixed up with the other documents and, therefore, the same could not be filed earlier or confronted to DW.1 on the day of cross-examination. The said documents will prove the falsity of defence of DW.1 and prove the case of the 2nd respondent/complainant.

3. A counter came to be filed by the revision petitioners/accused denying the execution of the documents in question. It is contended that the copies of the alleged documents were not served on the revision petitioners/accused. It is further contended that after crossexamination of P.W.1 and D.W.1, the documents in question were filed only to fill up the lacunae and the documents sought to be received are created only for the purpose of this case. It is also contended that the revision petitioners/accused never issued any cheque in favour of the 2nd respondent/complainant towards discharge of any liability. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent/complainant failed to pay the sale consideration as per the schedule of payment fixed in the agreement of sale, for which the revision petitioners/accused have sustained huge loss. It is further contended that the Counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant had crossexamined D.W.1 at length, but during the entire crossexamination, the Counsel for the complainant had not even put the suggestion to D.W.1 for execution of cancellation of sale agreement or receipt or any document.

4. After considering the rival submissions, the learned Magistrate allowed the said petition and that the documents in question were received subject to proof and relevancy on payment of costs of Rs. 1000/-. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioners/accused.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/accused; learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant.

6. It has been submitted on behalf of the revi