Telangana High Court
Eedha Vigneshwar vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.15297, 15319 and 15310 OF
2024
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition No.15297 of 2024 is filed under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short
'BNSS') by petitioner to quash the proceedings against him in
Crl.M.P.No.77 of 2024 in M.C.No.77 of 2018 dated 19.08.2024
on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge-
cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.
2. Criminal Petition No.15319 of 2024 is filed under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short
'BNSS') by petitioner to quash the proceedings against him in
Crl.M.P.No.78 of 2024 in M.C.No.77 of 2018 dated 19.08.2024
on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge-
cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.
3. Criminal Petition No.15310 of 2024 is filed under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short
'BNSS') by petitioner to quash the proceedings against him in
Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2024 in M.C.No.77 of 2018 dated 19.08.2024
on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge-
cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.
4. For the purpose of reference, facts in Crl.P.No.15297 of
2024 are taken.
5. The Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family
Court at Medchal-Malkajgiri passed an order, dated 19.08.2024
in Crl.M.P.Nos.77, 78 and 79 of 2024 in M.C.No.77 of 2018,
which is as follows:-
"In the instant case the petitioner/respondent
has not filed any application to set aside the ex
parte order dated 18.08.2022 within three (03)
months from the date of said order and all the
above applications referred filed by the
petitioner/respondent on 13.02.2023 and
05.03.2024 are dismissed as not pressed by the
petitioner/respondent and these applications are
filed on 10.04.2024 and in such circumstances the
contention on behalf of the respondent/petitioner
that the petitioner/respondent is intentionally
dragging on the proceedings is found tenable.
Further no sufficient grounds are shown by the
petitioner/respondent to set aside the order dated
18.08.2022 closing his evidence and since the
above applications are not filed within three (03)
months from the date of the ex parte order dated
18.08.2022 that there are no merits in the above
applications and they are liable to be dismissed.
The point is answered accordingly".
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner that order, dated 19.08.2024 is bereft of
reasons and is not a just decision. It is further submitted that
Apex Court in Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan and
another 1 has laid down the principle that length of duration of
a case cannot displace the basic requirement of a just decision.
It is also contended that the age of a case cannot be desist the
matter, when prayer is made for examination of material
witness. On the basis of the Apex Court judgment, it is
contended that an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., is
made, an adequate opportunity has to be granted and that in
the present case, the learned judge has in fact not considered
the aspect of providing an opportunity to revisit the ex parte
order, dated 18.08.2022, so as to meet the ends of justice.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the learned
(2019) 6 SCC 203
Single Judge in Madhusudan Shukla v. State of U.P. and
Another 2.
7. It is submitted that the learned counsel, who was
appearing on behalf of petitioner, was a close relative of
respondent and that learned counsel had not informed
petitioner/respondent about the dismissal of the Crl.M.Ps on
19.08.2024. That it is for this reason, petitioner/respondent
could not take timely steps to pursue the legal remedies
available as per law. It is also submitted that trial Court has
erred in not granting relief as prayed for, on the ground that an
application has to be made within three months to set aside the
ex-parte order and that the delay is 564 days and Crl.M.Ps filed
earlier to reopen the written arguments were also dismissed.
8. It is contended that the dismissal of the earlier Crl.M.Ps
does not have the bearing on CCO, that every application has to
be viewed independently. Hence prayed for quashing of the
order, dated 19.08.2024.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No.2 submitted that petitioner has been dragging
2022 SCC online All 409
the matter for more than six years, on one ground or the other.
It is further submitted that petitioner filed two Crl.M.Ps on
earlier occasions and both the applications were dismissed as
not pressed on 13.02.2023 and 05.03.2024. It is submitted that
the facts in Manju devi case (1 Supra) are not applicable to
the present case.
10. Learned counsel has placed the reliance upon the
judgment of learned single Judge in Rahul Darbari v. Arun
Kumar Khobragade & Others 3. Relying upon the said
judgment, it is submitted that the delay in filing an application
under Section 311 of CPC is one of the important factors and
the delay has to be explained in the application. That no proper
explanation is forthcoming for the delay of 564 days in
preferring the criminal petition (against the order dated
18.08.2022). Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court
to paragraph No.21 of the judgment and contended that this
Court cannot exercise its discretionary jurisdiction as there is
an inordinate delay.
11. Heard learned counsel. Considered the submissions and
perused the record.
2024 SCC Online Del 2523
12. Petitioner was married to respondent No.2 on 27.02.2015.
An application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for grant of
maintenance was filed before the Family Court at L.B.Nagar.
When this Court queried, as to whether any maintenance was
granted, it is submitted by both the counsels on record that no
orders are passed till date. Domestic Violence Case No.77 of
2018 is pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Metropolitan Magistrate. Petitioner filed Crl.M.Ps on earlier
occasions for filing of written arguments, after the common
order, dated 19.08.2024, another Crl.M.P., was filed. Crl.M.Ps
came to be dismissed as not pressed. Present miscellaneous
petitions are filed to reopen the evidence closed on 18.08.2022
and rejected by the Principal District & Sessions Judge. When
this Court queried whether the revision petitioner entered the
witness box, it is stated that revision petitioner has not entered
the witness box and order, dated 18.08.222 was an ex-parte
order. There is 564 days delay in preferring this criminal
petition.
13. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case and the
submissions of the counsel for preferring the criminal petitions
with delay, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice
would be met, if the petitioner be permitted an opportunity to
present evidence in support of his case essential for deciding
the case. Both the parties to a proceeding should be given
opportunity to present their case and defend. In the absence of
such opportunity, prejudice would be caused.
14. This Court is inclined to allow the petition with costs of
Rs.25,000/- to be paid by petitioner. The costs shall be paid to
respondent No.2 by way of Demand Draft or a bankers cheque
within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
15. It is made clear that a memo shall be filed into the trial
Court of payment by petitioner and receipt of the amount by
respondent No.2. Needless to state that only on receipt of
amount by respondent No.2, the trial Court is permitted to take
up the proceedings and permit the petitioner herein to present
evidence in support of his case. On an application in the trial
Court, the Court shall consider the evidence and shall dispose
of the case, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a
period of 6 months. This Court is conscious of the fact that no
time limit can be fixed by this Court, as the priority of the cases
listed before the trial Court would be disturbed. Maintenance
Case No.77 is of 2018, pending for more than 7 years, no
orders are passed for grant of maintenance, this aspect cannot
be lost sight of.
16. For the reasons stated above, criminal petition
Nos.15297, 15319 and 15310 of 2024 are allowed and the
order, dated 19.08.2024 is liable to be quashed and accordingly
quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 26.03.2025
pss
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.15297, 15319 and 15310 OF
Date: 26.03.2025
pss
