HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3147 of 2008 O R D E R: This petition has been filed U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in CC No. 979 of 2002 on the file of the III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.4.2008 passed in Crl.R.P.No. 141 of 2007 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and consequently call for records from the Branch Manager, A.P.S.F.C. Mahabubnagar Branch. 2. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant in CC No. 979 of 2002. The petitioner took the premises of the respondent on lease and issued post-dated cheques towards lease amount. Consequent on the dishonour of cheques issued by the petitioner, the respondent herein presented a complaint before the III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad after issuing a statutory notice. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as CC No. 979 of 2002. The petitioner/accused filed a petition being Crl.M.P.No. 6575 of 2007 U/Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. to call for documents from the Branch Manager, A.P.S.F.C, Mahabubnagar regarding payments received by APSFC and also correspondence between APSFC and the respondent company. By order dated 01-10-2007 the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on the ground that the alleged records are in no way relevant for adjudication of the case. 3. For better appreciation I may refer to the relevant portion of the order dated 01-10-2007 passed by the learned III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and it is thus: “8. The present petition filed to call for the documents from APSFC, Mahabubnagar branch from January, 2001 to April, 2002 of Prudential Spinners Ltd., Now, dispute is that Ex.P5 is issued by the petitioner/accused to respondent/complainant for legally enforceable debt. There is no dispute that non-payment of the installments within time by the respondent/complainant to APSFC. It shows that petition is devoid of merits. Hence, petition is liable to be dismissed. . In the result, the petition is dismissed. ” 4. The unsuccessful petitioner-accused carried the matter by way of revision before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court, Hyderabad, being Crl.R.P.No. 141/2007. The learned Judge on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on re-appreciating all the material brought on record did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of trial court and accordingly dismissed the revision petition. Assailing the said order, the present criminal petition has been filed by the accused with the prayer stated supra. 5. Heard Sri C.Praveen Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent-complainant suppressed the material facts of obtaining loan from the APSFC at the time of leasing out the premises and the said suppression of material fact is required to be examined by summoning the APSFC. A further submission has been made that the records from APSFC are relevant for proper adjudication of the issue in the cheque bouncing case being CC No. 979 of 2002. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent supported the impugned order. 8. The petitioner obtained the mill owned by the 1st respondent complainant on lease and issued post-dated cheques towards lease amount. Consequent on the dishonour of the cheque issued by the petitioner, proceedings have been initiated by the 1st respondent complainant for the offence u/sec. 138 of N I Act and after issuing statutory notice. Availment of loan by 2nd respondent from APSFC and his failure to pay the installments are no way relevant for adjudication of the cheque bounce case initiated by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. 9. I deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of the order and it reads thus: “The revision petition is filed by the petitioner/accused against the order dated 1-10-2007 passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No. 6575/2007 in CC No. 9879/2002 by which the lower court dismissed the petition filed by the accused under section 91/243 Cr.P.C. refusing to call for documents from Branch Manager, APSFC, Mahaboobnagar Branch. 2. For the same reasons recorded by me in RP No. 140/2007 in the Judgment passed today, I am of the opinion that the lower court rightly refused to call for the documents as they are extraneous and irrelevant for trial of an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The lower court rightly dismissed the petition filed by the accused. 3. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.” 10. The trial court as well as the revisional court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and rejected the prayer of the petitioner to summon the records from APSFC. The order passed by the trial court as confirmed by the revisional court does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers conferred U/Sec. 482 cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 11-06-2008 shall stand vacated. __________ 30-07-2010 Mjl/*