HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8727 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8728 OF 2010 DATE: 06.09.2010 BETWEEN: M/s H.K.Sales Syndicate .. Petitioner And M/s Venkataramana Constructions and another ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8727 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8728 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Petition No.8727 of 2010 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the dismissal order dated 16.07.2010 passed by the XIV Additional Judge cum XVIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.2903 of 2010 in C.C.No.397 of 2008. The Criminal Petition No.8728 of 2010 is filed against the dismissal order dated 16.07.2010 passed by the XIV Additional Judge cum XVIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.2904 of 2010 in C.C.No.397 of 2008. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner filed a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the first respondent/accused. In the course of the trial before the learned Court below, the evidence on both sides was adduced and at that stage, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to summon the documents from ICICI Bank, Nellore Branch on the ground that in the cross examination the first respondent denied issuance of cheque and also the fact that DW1 is partner of M/s Venkateshwara Constructions (accused) and he is no way concerned with it. According to the petitioner, those documents are necessary to prove his contention. He also filed Crl.M.P.No.2905 of 2010 under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. to receive the documents for the said purpose. The first respondent/accused opposed the petition before the learned trial Court by filing a counter. The learned trial court by a common order dismissed all the petitions filed by the petitioner and against the said dismissal order, the present criminal petitions are filed. The learned trial Court in its order mentioned that Ex.P.5-reply notice is sent through an advocate and in second para thereof admitted the debt which is the most important aspect. It has been further observed by the learned trial court that the defence theory is that the first respondent issued a blank cheque without filling up date, name of drawee and amount as a condition precedent for supply of certain material. It is relevant to notice in this context that the first respondent admitted the signature on the documents sought to be summoned from the bank for the purpose of proving the existence of account of the first respondent in the bank. But it is rightly pointed out by the learned trial Court that as per the reply notice the accused admitted issuance of cheque by him and return of the same, when presented. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner since in the reply notice the first respondent denied the debt and his ownership over the cheque and therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to prove the said fact. The learned trial Court observed that the petitioner has been resorting to file number of petitions on various grounds. He filed similar petitions earlier and they were dismissed. The revision filed against the said order in SR.No.2905 of 2009 on the file of the Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad was dismissed on 05.10.2009. Considering all the aspects of the matter, I am of the view that this Court need not permit each and every application made by the party merely because in the opinion of the party making the application it is essential to prove the facts pleaded by him. If there is some other evidence in proof of the fact sought to be established, to avoid delay in the trial of the case, the trial Court may refuse the applications of the present nature and in my view, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the applications. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned applications made before the trial Court by the petitioner in undue anxiety to substantiate his version, I set aside the finding of the learned trial court imposing costs of Rs.1000/- on the petitioner. With the above modification in the order setting aside the costs imposed by the trial Court, the criminal petitions are disposed of. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 06.09.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8727 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8728 OF 2010 DATE: 06.09.2010