THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7361 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

10.06.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2018 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.604 of 2019 by the II-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner No.1 is a company represented by petitioner No.2. Crl.M.P.No.2018 of 2023 was filed by the petitioners herein under Section 391 of Cr.P.C, seeking to receive the bank statement of accused No.1 and to mark the same through Dw.1. The cheques in the series of disputed cheque were utilized by the appellants in the year 2007 itself and it is the further allegation that complainant committed theft of the cheque in 2007 and misused them in the year 2011 and filed a false and fabricated complaint against them. As such, the computer generated bank statement is necessary for him to prove that the cheques in the series are utilized by him in the year 2007 itself. As such he filed the said petition. The respondents therein filed counter denying the allegations stating that since the cheque in dispute was issued by the appellants to the complainant through covering letter with an undertaking that he would honour the said cheque without fail and further undertook that he would not close the account and will not dishonor the said cheque for any reason. The appellate Court after hearing both sides dismissed the said petition stating that it is the specific case of the complainant which is not denied by the appellants/accused that the cheques were issued with a covering letter. Therefore, the computer generated bank statement wherein usage of same series of cheques in the year 2007 does not bear any significance. As such dismissed the said petition.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal petition is filed stating that the lower appellate Court failed to see that Section 391 Cr.P.C., empowers it to receive additional evidence, if it finds that it is necessary and it passed the impugned order holding that petitioners/appellants failed to produce the said additional evidence in the trial Court and they had opportunity to lead the proposed computer generated statement of the bank account of the petitioners showing that petitioners utilized several cheques which are in the same series as those of all the disputed cheques way back in the year 2007 itself and it fortifies the defense of petitioners that the complainant has stolen the disputed cheques and presented them in the year 2011. Hence requested the Court to allow the petition by directing the appellate Court to receive the said document through Dw.1.

4. Heard Sri Nyshadham Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri N. Madan Mohan Murthy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the lower appellate Court dismissed the petition observing that the defense that was taken in the lower appellate Court was not taken in the trial Court. Therefore, the lower appellate Court without observing the judgment dismissed the petition simply stating that the said defense was not taken. Learned counsel further submitted that the document filed by the petitioners is a computer generated bank statement which is essential to prove their defense and if it is not lead in evidence, it will cause prejudice to the petitioners. As such, requested this Court to allow this petition.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the civil suit filed against the petitioners is already decreed and an Execution petition is also filed. The petitioners have admitted their guilt and also compromised with respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for paying the amount and the petition under Section 391 Cr.P.C, was filed only to drag on the matter. As such, requested the Court to dismiss this petition.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both th