THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5980 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) by the petitioner/complainant, seeking to quash the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in Crl.P.No.359 of 2025 in C.C. No.2920 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam

(herein after referred as “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Sri A.Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri Ch.Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused

the materials on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- complainant and the accused-respondent No.2 are acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, in the year 2017, accused borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the

complainant and promised to repay the same by 31.07.2019 and also issued two cheques bearing Nos.78140 and 78414, dated 31.12.2019 each for Rs.5,00,000/- and document dated 12.10.2019 executed by the accused in favour of the complainant to discharge his liability. The said cheques were returned unpaid on 25.03.2020 stating reason “Exceeds arrangement” in the bank account of accused. The complainant got issued legal notices dated 15.04.2020 to the accused demanding to repay Rs.10,00,000/- and the accused got issued reply notice dated 29.06.2020, but denied the liability. Therefore, the petitioner committed offence under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court failed to see that the accused had admitted the document in reply noticed dated 29.06.2020 and ought to have given permission to adduce secondary evidence. Learned counsel further would submit that the learned trial Court failed to see that under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, leading of secondary evidence is permissible when the original is lost. The trial Court erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that non admission of contents of document cannot be used against respondent. The learned trial Court failed to see that as per the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2001 (3) SCC 1, the documents have to be admitted in the evidence at the stage of trial and the objection is to be at the state of final judgment. Hence, he prayed to allow this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the matter requires adjudication at length and only upon conducting a full- fledged trial, the real truth would be elicited. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there is no proper explanation by the petitioner to adduce and lead the secondary evidence of the Xerox copy and there is no proper explanation of the descriptive particulars of the original agreement in the complaint.

Hence, he seeks to dismiss this writ petition.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, petitioner has failed to establish that the original document is in possession of the respondent or the respondent has not admitted its existence or lost without fulfilling any of the contents of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act. Further, the real truth would be elicited in this case only upon conducting a full-fledged trial. Therefore, this Court does not see any ground to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the learned trial Court.

8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

____________________________

JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Date: 24.09.2025 pld THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

642 CRIMINAL PETITION No.5980 of 2025 Date.24.09.2025 pld