THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRL.P.No.9503 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the complainant in C.C.No.75 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kamalapuram to quash the order, dated 24.08.2010, passed in Crl.M.P.No.844 of 2010. Petitioner is the complainant and respondent No.1 is the accused in C.C.No.75 of 2005. The complainant is prosecuting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant examined the witnesses on his behalf and thereafter, the accused remained absent. Consequently, N.B.W. came to be issued followed by proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The accused surrendered before the trial Court on 25.01.2010 and later he was released on 12.03.2010. The accused filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for further cross- examination and the said petition came to be allowed and thereupon, P.W.1 came to be cross-examined on 22.06.2010. During the course of cross-examination, a discrepancy with regard to date of borrowing as mentioned in notice dated 18.03.2005 has been highlighted. Thereupon, the complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.844 of 2010 to summon Kola Vijaya Krishna, who typed the notice, to give clarification as to the date of borrowing mentioned in the notice. The accused filed counter resisting the application. Learned Magistrate on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that if the petition is allowed, there is every likelihood of the accused filing another application for recalling and thereby, proceedings are likely to be delayed. For better appreciation, I am referring the relevant portion of the order, dated 24.08.2010, passed in Crl.M.P.No.844 of 2010 and it is thus: “At this juncture, the present petitioner/complainant filed this petition seeking examination of a witness (Kola Vijaya Krishna) on his behalf for the clarification typographical mistakes. The alleged typographical mistakes, though committed by the concerned typist, the then counsel and complainant was every obligation to correct those mistakes before filing complaint before Court. The petition of the petitioner itself reveals that the schedule mentioned witness typed the notice and complaint of petitioner in the year 2005. During the course of employment the said typist might typed number of pleadings of number of advocates, whether the said typist could recollect the facts in the present case or not is highly doubtful and improbable. Further, there is no proof to show that the schedule mentioned witness was typed the pleadings in notice and complaint of the petitioner. If this petition is allowed, the respondents may file another petition for the purpose of recalling the then counsels of petitioner and their examination before this Court, which create much embarrassment and delay in proceedings. Further, this Court opines that the present application filed only for the purpose of filling up the lacunae’s which were elicited by the respondent counsel by recalling P.W.1. Hence, this Court is of the view there are no good grounds to allow the present application and the petition is devoid of merits, hence this Court is not inclined to allow this application.” Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- complainant, learned counsel for respondent No.1-accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2-State. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner- complainant that the petitioner came to know the mistake in the notice with regard to date of borrowing for the first time on 22.06.2010 and an application has been moved by him immediately and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner- complainant filed the petition to protract the proceedings. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-accused submits that the very filing of the petition by the petitioner- complainant at the fag end of the case and more so, when the case is posted for arguments cannot be said to be bona fide and therefore, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. As seen from the material placed on record, respondent No.1-accused avoided the Court and thereupon, N.B.W. came to be issued and even proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been taken out. Ultimately, respondent No.1-accused appeared before the Court and filed an application to recall P.W.1 and the said application came to be allowed by the trial Court on 12.05.2010. During the course of examination of P.W.1 on 22.06.2010, discrepancy with regard to date of borrowing has been highlighted and thereupon, the petitioner-complainant moved Crl.M.P.No.844 of 2010 to summon the typist, who typed the notice, to clarify with regard to the date of borrowing mentioned therein. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the application moved by the petitioner-complainant is to protract the proceedings in C.C.No.75 of 2005. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the order, dated 24.08.2010, is set aside. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.844 of 2010 shall stand allowed. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J kdl Dt.18.09.2012