HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Crl.P.No.5252 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner was accused in C.C.No.726 of 2014 in the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka for the offences punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The petitioner had contended before the trial Court that he had no commercial transactions with the respondent herein and that the cheque had been given to a financier by name Sri M.V. Krishna Reddy along with a promissory note, which has been misused by Sri M.V. Krishna Reddy, who had set up the respondent herein against the petitioner. The petitioner also took the ground that the respondent herein did not have the financial capacity to advance a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was the amount shown in the cheque.
3. The trial Court, after trial, had convicted the petitioner and passed a sentence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka by filing Crl.A.No.574 of 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.58 of 2020 before the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Gajuwaka, contending that Sri M.V. Krishna Reddy had filed O.S.No.295 of 2015 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka for recovery of certain amounts claimed by him and that production of the record of that suit, and more specifically the promissory note in the said suit, would show that the respondent was 2 RRR,J Crl.P.No.5252 of 2022 set up by Sri M.V. Krishna Reddy to harass the petitioner herein and the same can be proved by production of the record in the above suit. After hearing both sides the appellate Court dismissed the said application by order dated 17.01.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present criminal petition.
4. The appellate Court, after considering the submissions made by both sides, had held that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.295 of 2015 was already marked in Ex.P.5 in the trial Court and that the petitioner had been given adequate and sufficient opportunity to adduce whatever evidence he wanted to adduce. The appellate Court also took the view that calling for the entire record of the suit was not permissible and further exercise of power under Section 391 Cr.P.C., has to be done sparingly with caution for meeting the ends of justice and not for filling up the lacunae in the case of the summoning party.
5. Heard Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G. Ram Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
6. Sri. P.Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not insisting on summoning the entire record of the suit, but only the promissory note marked in the said suit. He submits that the comparison of the promissory note with the cheque, relied upon in these proceedings, would show that both the documents had been signed on the same day, and consequently, it would 3 RRR,J Crl.P.No.5252 of 2022 have to be inferred that Sri M.V. Krishna Reddy had been the recipient of both the cheque and the promissory note. He submits that such a conclusion would also mean that the cheque was never given to the respondent herein.
7. The petitioner has not made out any such clear case either in the petition for summoning the documents or in the arguments made before the appellate Court.
8. This Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the appellate Court, both on the ground of the purpose for which an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C., can be allowed and on the ground that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity, should not be interfered with.
Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
21st November, 2022 Js.
4 RRR,J
Crl.P.No.5252 of 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Crl.P.No.5252 of 2022
21st November, 2022
Js.