Trial courts have discretion in admitting documents relevant to ongoing cases, evaluating their admissibility at a later stage.

COMMON ORDER:

Crl.P.No.3756 of 2025 is filed assailing the order dated

31.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.447 of 2024 in C.C.NI.No.6192 of 2022, wherein respondent No.2/petitioner/complainant filed a petition to receive document Nos.(i) to (iii) in order to record.

Crl.P.No.3757 of 2025 is filed challenging the order dated

31.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.448 of 2024 in C.C.NI.No.6192 of 2022, wherein the respondent No.2/petitioner/complainant filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PW-1 for marking the documents as additional exhibits.

3. Heard Ms.Pujyam Sai Sri, learned counsel, representing Mr.G.Venkata Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The trial Court, having considered the submissions, allowed the petitions of receiving the documents and recalling the PW-1, without costs. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/respondent/ accused preferred petitions for quashment of these orders.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court, without considering the aspect of relevancy, had allowed the petitions. He further asserts that the documents were pertained to proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (for short ‘NCLT’), and the parties therein are distinct from the parties in the calendar case. Furthermore, the respondent No.2/complainant before the NCLT has claimed the amount in question and is also prosecuting the calendar case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, as such untenably working out remedies parallelly. Further, though the calendar case is pending since 2018, the petition has been filed at a belated stage, and therefore, receiving the documents or recalling the witnesses for marking them would be unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. The documents intended to be filed are of the year 2021. Admittedly, the proceedings in the calendar case are pending for further evidence of the respondent No.2/complainant. For these reasons, the contention of belated filing is not appealing. Further, at the stage of receiving documents, determining the relevancy or veracity may not be required and considering the pleadings and on prima facie observation, the trial Court may receive the documents. However, as rightly observed in the impugned order, receiving of documents would not cause any prejudice or hardship as taking the documents on to evidence would be subject to cross-examination by the petitioner/accused. As such no impropriety is found in receiving of documents subject to proof and relevance. Correspondingly, to bring the received documents into evidence, seeking and ordering recall of PW-1 is perfectly justified.

8. For these reasons, in the absence of any illegality or perversity in recording conclusion, this Court finds no tenable reason for interference. Nonetheless, the petitioner may raise the aspects of relevancy and admissability of the documents, on presentment to receive in evidence.

9. With this observation and in the absence of merit, both the Criminal Petitions are liable to be and are accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.