Telangana High Court
H.Mukunda Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 4 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3997 & 4002 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to quash the
common order dated 09.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2024
in C.C.No.130 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.210 of 2024 in C.C.No.127
of 2017 by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mahabubnagar, respectively.
2. The brief facts of the cases are that the
petitioner/complainant filed two separate calendar cases under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. CC.No.127 of
2017 was filed against G. Raghavender, and CC.No.130 of 2017
was filed against D. Linga Reddy, alleging that both accused issued
cheques that were dishonoured. During the trial, it was later
discovered that the documents such as dishonoured cheques,
cheque return memos, legal notices, postal receipts, and return
covers meant for one case were mistakenly filed and marked as
exhibits in the other case. The petitioner then filed applications
seeking permission to withdraw the documents marked in each
case and place them in the correct respective files, claiming the
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.3997 & 4002 of 2025
error was due to oversight and was neither intentional nor
deliberate.
3. On the other hand, the respondents/accused in both cases
strongly opposed the request of the petitioner and stated that the
documents, once marked as exhibits during trial, form part of the
judicial record and cannot be withdrawn or replaced, particularly
at the stage of final arguments and that allowing such withdrawal
and interchange would not only disrupt the trial process but would
also undermine the fairness of the proceedings and grant undue
advantage to the complainant. He further submitted that the
complainant had been negligent throughout the trial and could not
now be permitted to rectify the mistake, especially after the cross-
examinations were concluded based on the documents that had
already been marked. They contended that the petitioner cannot be
allowed to benefit from his own mistake or wrong.
4. The trial Court after hearing both sides, vide common order
dated 09.10.2024 dismissed the petitions holding that the
complainant had several opportunities to bring the issue to the
notice of the Court much earlier, including during the filing of the
cases, during the examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C., or even
before the conclusion of trial and cross-examination. The trial
3
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.3997 & 4002 of 2025
Court observed that the cross-examinations in both cases were
conducted based on the documents marked through PW-1, and if
the requested relief was granted, it would seriously prejudice the
rights of the accused as the credibility of the evidence and cross-
examination would be compromised. The trial Court further held
that the complainant had not exercised due diligence and had
delayed bringing the issue to light until the final stage of the
proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present
criminal petitions to set aside the common order dated 09.10.2024.
5. Heard Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy,
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 – State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order
passed by the trial Court, is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust, and
therefore, liable to be set aside and that the trial Court failed to
appreciate that the tagging of exhibits from one case to another,
namely C.C. No. 127 of 2017 and C.C. No. 130 of 2017, was purely
accidental and occurred due to oversight, possibly as a result of a
clerical error by the court staff, since the complainant in both
cases is the same and both cases were instituted on the same day.
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.3997 & 4002 of 2025
He further submitted that this clerical error, which was
unintentional and occurred due to inadvertence on the part of both
the counsel and the court staff, should not result in hardship to
the complainant and that allowing the petitions would cause no
prejudice to the respondent/accused, whereas the dismissal of the
petitions has caused considerable hardship to the
petitioner/complainant. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set
aside the impugned common order dated 09.10.2024 by allowing
these criminal petitions.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2
vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner stating that once the documents are marked, they
form part of the court record and there is no provision under law to
permit withdrawal of documents already marked. He submitted
that if the petitioner had marked the documents in this case, the
proper course would be to obtain certified copies from the Court
and produce the same in the other case, if necessary, during the
evidence of DW1. In the absence of any legal provision allowing
such withdrawal, the Court cannot permit the petitioner to
withdraw the already marked documents. Therefore, he prayed the
Court to dismiss these criminal petitions.
5
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.3997 & 4002 of 2025
8. In light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel
and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, it is
evident that there was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the
petitioner in filing the documents, specifically, in tagging the
exhibits from one case to another, namely, C.C.No.127 of 2017 and
C.C.No.130 of 2017. This error appears to have occurred due to
oversight and was noticed by the counsel for the petitioner only
during the course of arguments, prompting the filing of the present
petitions.
9. A review of the record indicates that the documents were, in
fact, filed in the wrong case, and this tagging error pertained to
exhibits intended for C.C.No.127 of 2017 but mistakenly filed in
C.C.No.130 of 2017. However, during the examination of the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the trial Court correctly
referred to the cheque numbers involved, thereby confirming the
relevance and identity of the documents. In such circumstances, it
cannot be said that permitting the withdrawal of the wrongly filed
documents would cause any prejudice to the accused. The
dismissal of the petitions by the trial Court purely on technical
grounds, especially when the error arose due to inadvertence on
the part of the counsel and the court staff, is not justified.
6
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.3997 & 4002 of 2025
Therefore, the common order passed by the trial Court liable to be
set aside.
10. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed setting
aside the common order dated 09.10.2024 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2024 in C.C.No.130 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.210
of 2024 in C.C.No.127 of 2017 by the III Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 04.07.2025
SAI
7
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.3997 & 4002 of 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3997 & 4002 of 2025
Date: 04.07.2025
SAI