B.SURYA PRAKASH REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order, dated 18.10.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3219 of 2019 in C.C.No.622 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kalwakurthy, wherein and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PWs.1 and 2 for further crossexamination was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the 2nd respondent/ complainant filed C.C.No.622 of 2016 against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the above said C.C., the evidence of the 2nd respondent/complainant was completed. At that stage, the petitioner/ accused filed Crl.M.P.No.3219 of 2019, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross-examination, stating that during earlier cross-examination, the Counsel for the petitioner/accused could not elicit the truth regarding the source of funds, income capacity and legally enforceable debt. It is further stated that the petitioner/accused came to know that the 2nd respondent/ complainant filed another case against one Kavitha i.e., C.C.No.619 of 2016, which was also covered by the self same alleged debt and he is not aware about the pendency of the said C.C. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent/complainant has been multiplying the cause of action by filing frivolous cases against the petitioner/ accused and trying to mislead the Court by suppressing material facts about the legally enforceable debt. The 2nd respondent/complainant filed counter stating that the case in C.C.No.619 of 2016 is not having any relevance or connection to the present case. The petitioner/ accused had already done lengthy cross examination of P.W.1 on all aspects of the case including the points on which he is filing the present recall petition. It is also stated that the petitioner/accused admitted the liability and filed a memo to compromise the matter, but later he turned around and contesting the matter. It is further stated that P.W.1 is old aged person having more than 80 years and the petitioner/accused cross-examined him after taking sufficient time. The present petition is filed only to drag on the matter and to fill up the lacunae of his case. After considering the rival submissions, the trial Court dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant.