THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1238 OF 2008 DT.22.07.2010 Between: Modadugu Rani ……………Petitioner Vs. The State, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and eight others. ………………Respondents. O R D E R: This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed seeking necessary direction to the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, to dispose of Crl.M.P.Nos.142 of 2007, 143 of 2007 and 141 of 2008, before proceeding with the evidence of LWs.4 to 6 in C.C.No.399 of 2003. On a complaint lodged by the petitioner, the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the accused under Sections 406, 420 and 403 I.P.C., read with Section 34 I.P.C., in C.C.No.399 of 2003, in which the petitioner was examined as PW-1 in part and as she was not present for further evidence, her evidence was closed. Therefore, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.Nos.1075 of 2006 and 2015 of 2006 to recall her and also to permit her to file and mark certain documents. On dismissal of the said petitions, she filed Crl.P.Nos.3893 of 2007 and 3892 of 2007 before this Court and the same were allowed. Pursuant to the orders passed by this court in Crl.P.Nos.3893 and 3892 of 2007, the trial court reopened the evidence of PW-1 and posted C.C.No.399 of 2003 to 07.12.2007. Prior to re-opening the evidence of PW-1, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.143 of 2007 seeking permission to receive the documents and mark the same. The trial court refused to mark the same on the ground that it requires stamp duty and penalty. Therefore, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.141 of 2008 to hear on the point whether the certified copy can be marked or it requires payment of stamp duty or not and the same is pending. The petitioner also filed Crl.M.P.No.142 of 2007 to recall PW-2 for marking the documents filed in Crl.M.P.No.143 of 2007. Without disposing of the said applications, the learned Magistrate proceeded to issue summons to LWs.4 to 6 and posted the matter to 15.02.2008. As the documents sought to be marked through PWs.1 and 2 are to be confronted to LWs.4 to 6, the petitioner requested the court below to dispose of the applications prior to adducing further evidence, but the court below instead of considering the request of the petitioner, proceeded with the evidence of LWs.2 to 6. Hence, the present criminal petition. Unless Crl.M.P.Nos.142 of 2007, 143 of 2007 and 141 of 2008 are disposed of, the witnesses cannot be summoned for the reason that the petitions which are filed by the petitioner for receiving the documents and to decide whether the documents require stamp duty or not, the court below is under an obligation to decide the applications first and then proceed with the trial of the case. In spite of service of notice on respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 and 7 to 9 and though vakalat is filed for the respondents, none appeared. However, no objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the third respondent for allowing the applications filed by the petitioner for the aforesaid reliefs. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed directing the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, to dispose of Crl.M.P.Nos.142 of 2007, 143 of 2007 and 141 of 2008 first and thereafter proceed with C.C.No.399 of 2003. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY J., Dt.22.07.2010 tjs