IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.949 and 955 of 2024

15^TH DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

Myakala Venugopal. … Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana

Rep. through Public Prosecutor and 1 other …Respondents

C O M M O N O R D E R

Since, the parties in both the petitions are one and the same, these

petitions are disposed of by way of common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed to quash the common order

dated 04.12.2023 in Crl.M.P.Nos.3930 and 3604 of 2023 in C.C.No.2772 of 2019 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge cum XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Court at Secunderabad (for short, “the trial Court”), whereby the petition filed under section 242(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 145(2) of N.I.Act to receive the documents and to recall and reopen

allowed by the trial Court.

3. Heard Mr.Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Kunda Sunil Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.

4. During the course of submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has failed to notice that the application filed under section 242(2) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as admittedly the complaint is not a police complaint. The trial Court failed to notice that the present petition is filed only to protract and drag the case without reaching finality. The trial Court failed to consider the counter filed by the petitioner/accused and allowed the applications filed by the complainant. The trial Court ought to have dismissed the applications as the documents sought to be marked are irrelevant and immaterial and have nothing to do with the present case. Hence, prayed to allow the criminal petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that there is no prejudice caused even if the criminal petitions are allowed for receiving and to establish the factual aspects. Hence, prayed to dismiss the criminal petitions.

6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner is facing trial for offence punishable under Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, it is essential in an offence of Negotiable Instruments Act to establish the case of the complainant through documents. Therefore, the complainant filed petitions for receive documents, to recall and reopen the evidence of PW2 to mark the alleged documents and the trial Court also allowed the said petitions. In view of the above observation, this Court opines that no interference is required in this matter since the trial Court has rightly allowed the petitions of receive documents as well as to recall and reopen the evidence of PW2 to mark the alleged documents. However, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, even if the PW2 is re-examined and the learned counsel for the petitioner will have ample opportunity to cross examine the PW2. Therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to fix a specific date for re-examination for marking of documents and both the parties and their counsel shall cooperate by appearing on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court without any delay and conclude the same. It is made clear that if the re-examination of PW2 is not completed on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court, this order stands vacated automatically.

7. With the above directions, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 15.12.2025 BV