THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6151 of 2011 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside order passed by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor in Crl.M.P.No.1554 and 1555 of 2011 in S.T.C.No.47 of 2007 dated 1.6.2011, whereunder applications filed to reopen the S.T.C. case filed to prosecute the petitioner-accused and to summon some witnesses were dismissed. The respondent-complainant filed S.T.C. under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner-accused (for short ‘the accused’) on the basis of a cheque and promissory note issued by the latter. The accused filed the two applications in the said S.T.C. case, one for reopening the S.T.C. and another for summoning and examining attestors of a promissory note. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that it is the claim of the accused that the pro-note on the basis of which it is the claim of the complainant that there was a legally existing debt between them is a forged document and hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused should be given an opportunity to examine the attestors of the promissory note in order to establish the fact that it happened to be a forged document and there has been no legally enforceable debt to prosecute him under Section 138 N.I. Act and the same can be done at any stage of the case and the order passed by the Court below is erroneous and hence it is liable to be set aside and the petition is to be allowed. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the order passed by the Court below is proper and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and further earlier petitioner/Accused filed Crl.M.P.No.2854 of 2008 in the Summary Trial Case for the purpose of reopening the matter and for giving opportunity to him to adduce necessary evidence, but the same was dismissed making similar observations against which, the petitioner preferred Crl.R.P.No.70 of 2008 before the District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor and the learned Judge dismissed the same vide order dated 4.2.2009 upholding the observations made by the learned Magistrate, against which petitioner-Accused preferred Criminal Revision Case before this Court and the same was also dismissed about which there is no dispute. In the impugned order, the Court below while dismissing the petitions, clearly observed that the matter was being dragged some how or other for more than three years and in the beginning only, the complainant filed xerox copy of the said promissory note, but the petitioner-accused failed to take measures as sought for at the earliest point of time and only for the purpose of dragging the matter further and further, these petitions have been filed. The circumstances of the case amply prove that the petitioner has been involving in prolonging the matter from time to time. Further, it is pertinent to note here that earlier his plea to reopen the matter was dismissed under the orders referred above and the became final. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that only for the purpose of dragging the matter, the present petition has been filed. It is very significant to note that the S.T.C. has been coming up for arguments since more than three years, but still it could not be disposed of and it appears that because of placing lot of hurdles by the petitioner/accused, it has not been done. As observed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner should have taken necessary steps on the xerox copy of the promissory note in the beginning only. I see no merits in the petition and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 27.7.2011 DA