IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3560 OF 2009 Between: Wali Pasha … Petitioner And: The State of A.P. rep. by P.P. High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another .. Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3560 OF 2009 ORDER: 1) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the order, dated 23.03.2009, in Criminal M.P. No.189 of 2008 in C.C. No.618 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar whereunder and whereby the application filed by the 2nd respondent herein to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the promissory note, was allowed. 2) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the evidence was completed and arguments have been advanced by both sides, that at the stage of reply arguments only, the 2nd respondent herein filed the petition belatedly so as to fill up the lacunae and hence he prays to set aside the impugned order. He further contended that the 2nd respondent has not taken the plea in his complaint, which was taken by him in the petition filed to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking pronote. He further contended that filing petition at belated stage is nothing but abuse of process of court. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the complainant has taken a specific plea in the complaint and deposed in his evidence that the accused executed the promissory note, that the trial court after considering the material rightly allowed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4) Whether recalling of P.W.1 at belated stage can be said to be abuse of process of court or to arrive at a just decision of the case is to be decided. The specific plea has been taken by the complainant in the complaint that the accused executed a promissory note and similarly in the witness box, he testified that the accused executed the promissory note. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent-complainant filed the petition to fill up the lacunae, in view of the specific plea taken in the complaint and also as testified in the evidence with regard to execution of promissory note. Therefore, it is a fit case where P.W.1 can be recalled for the purpose of marking the copy of promissory note in view of the fact that original promissory note had been filed in the relevant court. Hence the impugned order, dated 23.03.2009, does not call for interference by this Court. 5) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ Date:06.10.2009 K.C.BHANU,J Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3560 OF 2009 Date:06.10.2009 Gk.