Telangana High Court
Vegulla Leela Krishna vs State Of Telangana And Another on 11 July, 2023
Author: M. Laxman
Bench: M. Laxman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1961 & 1963 OF 2020 AND 1584 &
1585 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
1. Since the issue involved in all the petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Crl.P.Nos.1961 and 1963 of 2020 are filed by the complainant challenging the orders dated 10.03.2020 passed in Memos in SR.Nos.216 and 217 of 2020 in C.C.Nos.167 and 168 of 2019 respectively by the III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder the reliefs sought by the complainant for return of cheques and cheque return memos which were wrongly marked in the said CCs and substitution of the same with correct cheques and cheque return memos, were allowed. Whereas, Crl.P.Nos.1584 and 1585 of 2021 are filed by the accused challenging the orders dated 10.03.2020 in Crl.M.P.Nos.130 and 131 of 2020 in C.C.Nos.167 and 168 of 2019 respectively, whereunder the applications filed by the complainant seeking same relief in the above memos, were dismissed.
3. The petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.1961 and 1963 of 2020 is the accused and the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.1584 and 1585 of 2021 is 2 the complainant before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as accused and the complainant.
4. The facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant filed C.C.Nos.167 and 168 of 2019 before the Court below against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of various cheques allegedly issued by the accused. The trial was simultaneously commenced in both the said cases.
5. While so, the complainant noticed that due to inadvertence, cheques and cheque return memos under Exs.P-3 to P-6 were wrongly marked i.e., the cheques and cheque returns memos relating to C.C.No.167 of 2019 were marked in C.C.No.168 of 2019 and vice-versa. In order to rectify such a mistake, initially the complainant filed memos seeking return of cheques and cheque return memos which were wrongly filed to enable him to substitute the same with correct cheques and cheque return memos. However, since the accused has taken an objection regarding maintainability of the memos, it necessitated the complainant to file two applications i.e., Crl.M.P.Nos.130 and 131 3 of 2020 seeking the same relief, as sought in the said memos. However, ignoring the fact that both the memos as well as the applications relate to the same relief, the Court below took the memos and applications simultaneously for disposal and allowed the memos while dismissing the applications, vide separate orders dated 10.03.2020. Challenging the order of the Court below allowing memos, the accused filed Crl.P.Nos.1961 and 1963 of 2020 and challenging the order dismissing his applications, the complainant filed Crl.P.Nos.1584 and 1585 of 2021.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.1961 and 1963 of 2020/accused has contended that when the complainant filed Crl.M.P.Nos.130 and 131 of 2020 seeking the similar relief sought in the memos, he ought to have withdrawn the memos. But, without doing the same, the complainant insisted the Court below for passing orders in memos. According to him, the reliefs claimed in the memos and applications are one and the same and hence, filing of both i.e., memos and applications cannot be permitted for the same cause of action. He has further 4 contended that the Court below has committed error in allowing the memos and sought to set aside the said orders of the Court below.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.1584 and 1585 of 2021/complainant has contended that accepting the objection of the accused, the complainant filed two applications and hence, the Court below ought to have allowed the applications. Without doing so, the Court below wrongly dismissed the applications filed by the complainant. He has further contended that passing of orders in memos indicates that there are reasonable grounds exist for the relief prayed in the said applications and memos.
9. As seen from the impugned orders, unfortunately this litigation arises on account of improper appreciation of the reliefs sought in the said memos and applications. The Court below ought to have seen that when the objection raised by the accused was accepted by the complainant and filed two applications seeking similar relief in the memos, the reliefs sought in the memos become redundance, and as such, the Court below ought to have dismissed the memos, but the Court below erroneously 5 allowed the memos and dismissed the applications filed by the complainant. This approach of the Court below is not in accordance with law.
10. In view of commonality of the parties and joint trial in both the criminal cases, inadvertently the cheques/return memos relating to C.C.No.167 of 2019 were marked in C.C.No.168 of 2019 and vice-versa. This is purely a human error and it cannot be allowed to continue to defeat the justice. Therefore, the reliefs claimed in the applications are required to be allowed and the memos are required to be dismissed as redundance. Hence, all these criminal petitions are liable to be allowed.
11. In the result, all the criminal petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders dated 10.03.2020 in Memos in SR.Nos.216 and 217 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.130 and 131 of 2020 in C.C.Nos.167 and 168 of 2019 on the file of the III Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. The Court below is directed to return the marked documents in both the cases by substituting certified copies and allow the parties to mark the same as exhibits. It is made clear that on marking of documents returned by substitution, the counsel for the accused shall be given 6 opportunity for cross-examination. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE M. LAXMAN Date: 11.07.2023 TJMR