THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1789, 3499 and 3517 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Since a common issue arises in all these criminal petitions, they are being taken up for disposal together by way of this common order.

2. Crl.P.No.1789 of 2025 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.30 of 2025 in C.C.NI.No.1283 of 2021 by the learned VIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

3. Crl.P.No.3499 of 2025 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2025 in C.C.NI.No.1283 of 2021 by the learned VIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

4. Crl.P.No.3517 of 2025 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2025 in C.C.NI.No.1283 of 2021 by the learned VIII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall DW1 and reopen his evidence for the limited purpose of marking certain documents, namely (i) the Articles of Association of the complainant-Company and (ii) Form DPT-3 dated 28.06.2019 along with its attachments filed on the MCA website. The petitioner contended that the said documents are crucial for a just adjudication of the case and was not previously filed as they were not in his possession. It was further submitted that the complainant/respondent had no authority under its Articles of Association to lend money, and that the complainant lacked the financial capacity to lend, having been declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by Axis Bank prior to 2017. The petitioner argued that the cheque in question was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt but only as a mediatory arrangement to facilitate transfer of funds from the complainant to NECX Pvt. Ltd.

6. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant filed a counter denying the averments, contending that the petitioner remained silent ever since the cross-examination of PW1 and that the present petitions were filed belatedly only after the closure of defence evidence and complainant’s arguments, thereby intending to delay the proceedings.

7. The trial court, upon hearing both sides and examining the record, noted that the petitioner had already deposed as DW1 and admitted in his chief examination that the amount of Rs.1 crore was transferred from the complainant’s bank account to P.R. Consultancies, and thereafter from P.R. Consultancies to NECX Pvt. Ltd., as per an understanding. Thus, the transfer of funds was not in dispute. The court observed that in view of its order in Crl.M.P.No.30 of 2025, dismissing the petition to receive the said documents as secondary evidence, there was no justification to recall DW1 or reopen his evidence. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the petitions, holding that the documents sought to be marked were irrelevant for the just decision of the case and no prejudice would be caused by their exclusion. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petitions.

8. Heard Sri N. N. Somendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and Sri K. Siddarth Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders of the trial Court are illegal, contrary to law, and unjustifiable, and are liable to be set aside and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the defence of the petitioner that he never borrowed any amount from the complainant company and that the cheque in question was issued merely as a mediatory instrument to facilitate a fund transfer between the complainant company and NECX Pvt. Ltd. as part of a share-swapping arrangement, and not as a loan. He further submitted that the petitioner sought to