HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3578 OF 2010 Date: 22.04.2010 Between: Samala Srinivasa Rao and another ……Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3578 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2/accused in C.C.No.202 of 2003 are questioning order dated 04.03.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Suryapet in Criminal M.P.No.325 of 2010, by which the lower court refused to summon certain documents and witnesses and dismissed petition filed by the accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The 1st petitioner/A-1 is husband of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant. The 2nd petitioner/A-2 is mother of A-1. C.C.No.202 of 2003 was filed by the 2nd respondent against A-1 and A- 2 alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 IPC and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Now the complainant’s evidence was concluded in the lower court and after examination of the accused, the matter is coming up for defence evidence. At that stage, the petitioners filed the present petition in the lower court under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Documents proposed to be summoned are property statements of P.W.2 pertaining to the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and Service Register of P.W.2 from the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad; Income Tax Returns of P.W.2 pertaining to the said years from Income Tax Commissioner, Suryapet; and Office Register of State Bank of India, Suryapet Branch relating to three demand drafts dated 23.03.2002 drawn in favour of the 1st petitioner from the Manager of that bank. Apart from those documents, the petitioners also prayed for summons to Assistant General Manager of Main Branch, Vijayawada (no bank name is given) to give evidence with regard to Ex.P-16. At this stage, it may be noted that P.W.2 is father of the 2nd respondent. He is stated to be working as Judicial Officer in the State. The case pertains to receipt of dowry by the petitioners in connection with marriage between the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner. There is prolonged cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the lower court for several days. Property Statements and Service Register of P.W.2 have absolutely no relevance in deciding the matter in issue in the lower court. Similarly Income Tax Returns of P.W.2 are equally not relevant. Admittedly three demand drafts for Rs.45,000/-, Rs.45,000/- and Rs.10,000/- were drawn in favour of A-1 by P.W.2 on State Bank of India, Suryapet Branch. It may be immaterial as to in whose account those demand drafts were encashed because without signature and authorization of the payee, they could not have been encahsed. The lower court after perusing evidence of the complainant’s witnesses, observed that those witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence counsel on all aspects of the matter including the documents which are now sought to be summoned. It is evident that the petition was filed in the lower court with a view to further drag on proceedings in the criminal case which has been pending for the last seven years since the year 2003. Under the name of ‘fair trial’, the petitioners/accused cannot be allowed to summon unconnected material and unconnected witnesses. I also see no bonafides in the petition filed by the petitioners/accused in the lower court as well as in this petition. This is nothing but abuse of process of Court by the petitioners/accused. I see no merits in this petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:22.04.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3578 OF 2010 Date: 22.04.2010 Gk.