IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5150 OF 2009 Between: Gotru Srivenkata Adinarayana Rao ..... Petitioner AND 1. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Turimella Lakshmana Rao ..... Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/accused to quash the order in Crl.M.P.No.2878 of 2009 in C.C.No.467 of 2005, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudiwada, Krishna District. 2. The petition was filed to call for Ex.A1-Promissory Note in O.S.No.207 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that the xerox copy of the said document was already marked in this case as Ex.P1. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Ex.A1-Promissory Note as well as the cheque in question were forged by the second respondent herein; and therefore, to know whether the promissory note was executed by the petitioner or not, it is necessary to summon the said document. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that after taking 15 adjournments, the petitioner has not proceeded with the cross-examination of P.W.1, and the matter is posted for judgment; that the present petition is filed to drag on the proceedings; that the suit is filed based on Ex.A1-Promissory Note was decreed, and therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order under this Code. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, it is clear that the present application was filed in the trial Court only to protract the proceedings. It is not in dispute that the suit document was already in the Court itself. Summoning the original document from the Civil Court may not arise, especially in view of the fact that originally, Ex.A1-Promissory Note on which the suit was filed was already decreed. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 19th October, 2009. KL