THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3114 of 2012 Date:15.07.2014 Between:
Mutyala Venkateswara Rao . Petitioner.
AND The State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3114 of 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash the orders dated 09-03- 2012 in Crl.MP.No.217/2011 in C.C.No.2/2011 on the file of IV Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Petitioner herein filed the above referred Crl.MP.No.217/2011 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, requesting the Court to send Ex.D1- document to a handwriting expert for a comparison of the writings in the document with the hand writings of the respondent-complainant for a just decision in the case.
The complainant opposed the said application and on considering the contentions and rival contention of both parties, learned Magistrate dismissed the application and aggrieved by the same, present petition is filed to quash the said order.
4. Advocate for petitioner submitted that the trial Court, only on the ground of delay of 40 days, refused to grant relief to the petitioner and the document-Ex.D1 is very important for deciding the disputes in the main C.C.
She submitted that the complainant is doing textile business and also running chits and in that context, this Ex.D1- document was given to the accused and it contains the handwritings of complainant. On the other hand, Advocate for second respondent submitted that the learned Magistrate has considered elaborately the contentions and rival contentions of both parties and rightly dismissed the petition. He submitted that the main documents, which are Exs.P1 to P3 are not disputed and the petitioner has admitted execution of promissory note, execution of a undertaking letter and cheque and after examination of witnesses on both sides and when the matter was at the stage of argument that too when it is posted as a last chance, the petitioner has come up with this application only with an intention to protract the proceedings.
He further submitted that this Ex.D1 is produced into the Court on 03-11-2011 but the petition is filed 40 days after 03- 11-2011 and this document was not put to the complainant when he was examined as a witness and all these aspects are to be considered by the trial Court and rightly dismissed the application and that there are no grounds to interfere. Learned Advocate further submitted that the petitioner has succeeded in dragging the matter by filing this petition, as a result, the main C.C.No.2/2011 is held up and not disposed of.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this petition is whether the proceedings in C.C.No.2/2011 are liable to be quashed or not?
6. I have perused the material papers filed along with the quash petition. According to petitioner, complainant is doing textile business and also running chits and in that context, he made entries in the document i.e., Ex.D1. Complainant has denied these entries. Admittedly, this document is only produced during the evidence of defence i.e., during examination of petitioner herein. If really, this document is material and important to decide the issue, the same should have been produced when the evidence of complainant was in progress. During cross-examination of complainant, the minimum expected from the petitioner is to put this document to him and get an answer either in affirmative or in negative and thereafter, steps should have been taken for proving that document. As seen from the order of the learned Magistrate, after the matter is posted for arguments and after taking some adjournments on the ground of settlement, this petition is filed and for that reason, the learned trial Judge observed that it is highly belated and the petition is filed only to drag the proceedings and to delay the case. On a scrutiny of the material, I do not find any wrong in the findings of the learned trial Judge and he rightly exercised his judicial discretion. Admittedly, document-Ex.D1 is produced at a highly belated stage and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Judge. Since the C.C is of the year 2011 as the Advocate for respondent contended that because of this case, the Court below could not dispose of the case and the petitioner has successfully gained time, I feel that a direction should be given to the Court below to dispose of the case within stipulated time.
7. For these reasons, petition is dismissed directing the Court below to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:15.07.2014 mrb