THE HON'BLE JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8256 of 2019
ORDER:
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.5383 of 2019 in C.C.No.116 of 2016 passed by the XI Special Magistrate at Erramanzil, Hyderabad, the petitioners herein filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the said order.
The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.116 of 2016. The offence alleged against the petitioners herein is under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners herein has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.5383 of 2019 in C.C.No.116 of 2016 seeking permission of the Court below to lead secondary evidence and exhibiting some other documents in defense evidence. In the said application, the petitioners herein have contended that the orders in Crl.M.P.No.2946 of 2019 dated 09.07.2019 filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Crl.M.P.No.4128 of 2019 dated 03.09.2019 filed under Section 315 Cr.P.C. do not bar/prohibit the petitioners-accused from leading secondary evidence and exhibiting some other documents in defense evidence. The respondent-complainant has filed objections to the said petition by contending that the main Calendar Case is posted for continuation of chief-examination of D.W.1. At that particular stage, the petitioners herein have filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The relief sought in the said petition is beyond the scope of the orders passed in Crl.R.P.No.32 of 2019 by the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 2 04.04.2019. The petitioners are trying to protract the case by filing false and frivolous applications. With the said objections, the respondent-complainant sought to dismiss the said application.
By order dated 12.11.2019, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioners/accused did not specify as to which documents they intend to lead secondary evidence so also as to which of the other documents they intend to get exhibited on their defence. They have also not filed any documents along with the present petition nor whispered a word specifying the documents which they intend to file as secondary evidence. It is held by the learned Magistrate that the petitioners did not specify as to which some other documents they intended to be exhibited on their behalf in their defence in the present case. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application vide order dated 12.11.2019 by holding that the relief sought by the petitioners is vague, clumsy and lacks clarity and so also it is also not specific.
A perusal of the relief sought in the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.5383 of 2019 would reveal that the petitioners herein have stated that the orders dated 09.07.2019 in Crl.M.P.2946 of 2019 filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the order dated 03.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.4128 of 2019 filed under Section 315 Cr.P.C. do not bar/prohibit the petitioners/accused from leading secondary evidence and exhibiting some other documents in defence evidence. Except that one sentence, there is no other pleading. They have not mentioned the documents which they sought to exhibit or mark through the evidence.
3
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the documents sought to be marked are part of the record. But in the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the petitioners did not specify with regard to the documents sought to be marked as secondary evidence and it is also not mentioned in the said application that the said documents which the petitioners intend to mark as secondary evidence is part of the record. As rightly held by the learned Magistrate that the contents of the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are vague. The details of the documents are not mentioned. The reasons for filing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are also not mentioned.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the principle laid down by this Court in a decision reported in SYED WASIF HUSSAIN KHAN V/s. STATE OF TELANGANA1. In the said case, at para 10, it is specifically mentioned that in the complaint itself, the complainant/petitioner has shown the Branch Manager , State Bank of India, Sripuram, Malakpet, Hyderabad, as a third witness. By referring the same, this Court has allowed the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Whereas in the present case, the petitioners herein did not mention specifically the details of the documents and the contentions. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Both the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the main Calendar Case is of the year 2016 and it is posted for judgment 1 2020(2) ALD (Crl.) 1040 (TS) 4 tomorrow. Though the petitioners herein have filed the present criminal petition in the month of December, 2019, they have not pursued the matter and when the main calendar case is posted for judgment tomorrow before the lower Court, they made a mention today. As stated above, the petitioners herein without mentioning the details of the documents and without pleading that the documents are part of the record filed the present application vaguely. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 12.11.2019. Therefore, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. The petitioners herein failed to establish any circumstance or ground to interfere with the order under challenge by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 19.01.2021 pgs