IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.15796 of 2025 Date: 15.12.2025 Between:

Zaddu Sudhakar ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another.

...Respondents

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated

12.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2815 of 2022 in C.C.N.I.No.5086 of 2022 on the file of the V Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad, and to consequently direct the trial Court to hear the arguments of both parties in the main case without any further delay and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

2. Heard Mr.D.Subramanyam, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Ms.B.Kavitha Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner lodged a complaint against respondent No.2, invoking the provisions under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. At the stage of defence evidence, respondent No.2/accused filed an application seeking recall of PW.1 for cross-examination. The petitioner filed a detailed counter denying the averments made in the said application. However, the learned Magistrate, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, allowed the said application by order dated 12.12.2024. Accordingly, PW.1 was recalled by reopening the case for further cross-examination, subject to the condition that respondent No.2 shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner and shall complete the cross-examination of the said witness on the next date of hearing. In the event of failure to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the petition shall stand dismissed.

3.1. He vehemently contended that respondent No.2 has not complied with the two conditions imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the trial Court ought to have proceeded with the matter in accordance with law. On the other hand, adjourning the case from time to time and permitting further cross-examination of the petitioner/PW.1. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed the present application despite having already cross-examined the petitioner at length after changing seven counsel, and the present application has been filed after engaging another counsel. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in AG v. Shiv Kumar Yadav and another¹

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 is ready and willing to comply with the conditions imposed by the trial Court. However, PW.1 did not appear before the trial Court to face cross-examination, and the matter underwent several adjournments at the instance of the petitioner only. She further submitted that respondent No.2 is ready to proceed with the cross- examination of PW.1 by complying with the condition of paying costs of Rs.2,000/- on the next date of hearing before the trial Court, i.e., on 18.12.2025, and respondent No.2 is ready and willing to cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the case before the Trial Court.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner filed a private complaint invoking the provisions of Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138

Crl.A.Nos.1187-1188 of 2015, dated 10.09.2015

of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The record further reveals that respondent No.2 filed an application, namely Crl.M.P.No.2815 of 2022, invoking the provisions of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking permission to reopen the case for further cro