THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1593 of 2009 Date: 04.02.2010 Between: Smt. K. Manjula. .. Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1593 of 2009 Order: This revision is directed against the orders dated 08.07.2009 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 5427 of 2008 in C.C. No. 662 of 2006 by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. Though the matter was adjourned on several occasions since 04.12.2009 i.e., on 04.12.2009, 18.01.2010, 28.01.2010, 01.02.2010, 02.02.2010 and 03.02.2010, none appeared for the petitioner nor there was any representation made on her behalf. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the second respondent herein insisted that he is ready to argue the matter and that the petitioner with a view to harass the second respondent filed a false criminal complaint and trying to drag on the proceedings only with a view to harass the second respondent herein. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C. No.662 of 2006. Alleging that the cheque bearing No.583378 issued by the second respondent was bounced and that the second respondent failed to pay the amount, she filed the complaint. The second respondent herein filed an application in Crl.M.P. No.5427 of 2008 in C.C. No. 662 of 2006, under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, seeking a direction to the petitioner herein to produce before the Court the original documents viz., the promissory note dated 30.04.2003 executed for Rs.2,00,000/- by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner herein and the acknowledgment of the debt executed in the year 2006 by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner/complainant indicating the outstanding loan amount of Rs.60,000/-. The second respondent’s case is that though he had borrowed the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner/complainant and executed a promissory note on 30.04.2003 in her favour, apart from giving an undated cheque bearing No.583378 for Rs.2,00,000/- as security for the repayment of the above loan amount, he also paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash in the year 2003 itself to the petitioner in the premises of the S.P. Road Branch of Corporation Bank, Secunderabad, and the said amount was credited to the account of the petitioner with the S.P. Road Branch of Corporation Bank, Secunderabad. The further case of the second respondent is that though he had paid a substantial amount in excess of the amount borrowed, yet the petitioner claimed further amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 24% p.a.. which by all standards was usurious. According to him, any reasonable incidence of interest would show that the entire sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was repaid in toto together with interest. However, on the advise of the well wishers the second respondent executed an acknowledgment of debt in favour of the petitioner admitting the outstanding loan amount of Rs.60,000/- in the year 2006. The second respondent’s specific case is that if the promissory note dated 30.04.2003 and the acknowledgment of debt executed by him in favour of the petitioner are summoned from the petitioner for being marked as defence exhibits, the truth will come out and these documents are relevant and necessary for better adjudication of the case and for establishing the defence case of the second respondent. The petitioner herein filed a counter stating that the second respondent herein filed quash proceedings in Criminal Petition No.7774 of 2006 and the same was dismissed and that the promissory note and the acknowledgment of debt are no way concerned with the complaint, and it is not necessary to produce those documents. Learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Secunderabad, by order dated 08th July, 2009, allowed the Crl.M.P. No.5427 of 2008. The same is under challenge. As referred above, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner since long time. Arguments of the learned counsel for the second respondent have been heard. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the cheque bearing No.583378 was encashed on 30.04.2003 and even the subsequent cheque was also encashed on 08.05.2003, and therefore, the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner/complainant prove the falsity of the case of the petitioner/complainant. It is further submitted that the Court below, on consideration of the entire material on record, has passed a well reasoned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. A reading of the impugned order gives an impression that the learned Magistrate, having considered the entire material and having gone through the contents of the petition and counter and other material, came to the conclusion that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner/complainant are necessary for just conclusion of the case. I have considered the grounds of revision and the points raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent. When the second respondent has specifically pleaded the part payment and the date of issuing of cheque, the documents sought to be produced appear to be relevant and necessary for just conclusion of the matter. It cannot be said that the documents are no way related to the present case. In view of the same, I hold that there are no merits in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision case is dismissed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 04.02.2010 Nsr