IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.6512, 6513, 6514, 6515, 6516 and 6517 of 2009 Between: M/s. Saiboda Hotels, Kurnool .. Petitioner AND G. Lakshmana Swamy and another .. Respondents Petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the orders dated 30-07-2009, in Crl.M.P. No.4363 of 2009 in C.C. 335 of 2004; in Crl.M.P. No.4362 of 2009 in C.C. No.173 of 2005; in Crl.M.P. No.4361 of 2009 in C.C. No.973 of 2005; in Crl.M.P. No.4364 of 2009 in C.C. No.974 of 2005; in Crl.M.P. No.4365 of 2009 in C.C. No.172 of 2005; and in Crl.M.P. No.4366 of 2009 in C.C. No.975 of 2005 all passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. These petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. P. Sarada, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent and of Sri M. Naga Raghu, Advocate for the 1st respondent in all the cases, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Heard Smt. P. Sarada, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent and Sri M. Naga Raghu, learned counsel, who entered appearance for the 1st respondent in all the cases. The grievance of the petitioner in all the cases is that the 1st respondent is provided an opportunity to summon his witness on payment of costs by allowing the petitions filed by him under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in all the cases without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to file counter or advance his arguments. The certified copies of the docket proceedings and the impugned orders in all the cases show that the petitions being decided after hearing both sides as specified in the impugned orders, is not reflected in the docket proceedings, which lends some respectability to the contentions of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court is not heard before ordering the petitions. While it should be made clear that permitting summoning of a witness at the behest of the accused in exercise of its judicial discretion within the defined parameters of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a matter for the trial Court to decide, the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice in determining the petitions without hearing the petitioner can be answered by remitting the matters back to the trial Court to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply or counter, if any, in each of these petitions within a specified time, on which the trial Court can determine the matters on merits afresh after hearing both sides and the criminal petitions have to be ordered accordingly. Therefore, the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool in Crl.M.P. No.4363 of 2009 in C.C. 335 of 2004; in Crl.M.P. No.4362 of 2009 in C.C. No.173 of 2005; in Crl.M.P. No.4361 of 2009 in C.C. No.973 of 2005; in Crl.M.P. No.4364 of 2009 in C.C. No.974 of 2005; in Crl.M.P. No.4365 of 2009 in C.C. No.172 of 2005; and in Crl.M.P. No.4366 of 2009 in C.C. No.975 of 2005, dated 30-07-2009, are set aside and all the said criminal miscellaneous petitions are remitted back to the trial Court for affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file his counters in all the petitions within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the trial Court and for determination on merits in accordance with law after hearing both parties within fifteen (15) days thereafter by the trial Court. The criminal petitions are ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-08-2009 Svv