(Prayer: Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 22.04.2026 passed in CrI. M.P. No. 620 of 2026 in C.C No.433 of 2019 ( Wrongly Typed as C C No. 294 of 2025) on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge Junior Division, Eluru and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the order dated 22.04.2026 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 620 of 2026 in C.C No.433 of 2019 (Wrongly Typed as C C No. 294 of 2025) on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge Junior Division, Eluru and pass such)

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash the order dated 22.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.620 of 2026 in C.C.No.433 of 2019 (wrongly typed case number as C.C.No.294 of 2025) on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

2. As seen from the record, petitioner filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.620 of 2026 under Section 254(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟) to receive documents and at the culmination of enquiry, learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, dismissed the said petition vide order dated 22.04.2026.

3. The grounds urged by the petitioner in this petition are that, the trial Court failed to consider the established principle of law that the Criminal Court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall or reexamine, failed to exercise its discretionary power, failed to consider the discretionary power under Sections 254(2) and 311 of the Code, failed to apply its mind and without assigning justifiable reasons, dismissed the petition.

4. Heard Sri Hari Krishna Tata, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

5. On hearing both sides and upon perusing the record, the point that would arises for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner established his case to receive documents filed by him in Crl.M.P.No.620 of 2026 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru?”

6. As seen from the record, respondent No.2 filed complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act and when the matter is posted for judgment on 06.04.2026, petitioner filed the petition under Section 254(2) of the Code and the reasons assigned by the petitioner in that petition are that due to S.S.C. Examinations, he could not adduce defence evidence, there are no lapses on his part, documents are very crucial to adjudicate the matter and further, he has to examine independent witnesses so as to prove his defence.

7. After considering the averments of petition, counter and submissions of both the parties coupled with stage of the case, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru dismissed the petition. As seen from the order passed by the learned trial Court, since 06.11.2023, this matter has been coming for adducing evidence by the petitioner, he had filed several petitions, those are allowed, given permission to adduce evidence by the petitioner, he failed to adduce evidence but got examined one independent witness as DW1, filed petitions to examine two more witnesses in Crl.M.P.No.573 of 2025 and the said petitions are also allowed. Further, since summons are not served on the witnesses, learned trial Court directed the petitioner to furnish correct address particulars of the witnesses, but he failed to take steps in that regard and as such, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed for default as this is more than five year old matter, and thereafter also, granted time for adducing further defence evidence and since the petitioner failed to adduce further defence evidence, closed the defence evidence, proceeded to hear arguments and even at that stage also, the learned trial Court had granted four adjournments and finally, on 01.04.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the trial Court to treat their arguments as heard and then, the matter is posted for judgment and on the date of judgment, petitioner filed the instant petition.

8. The order of the learned trial Court clearly reveals the delay tactics adopted by the petitioner in protracting the matter from 2023 to adduce defence evidence by filing several petitions. As rightly observed by the learned trial Court, this matter is of the year 2019 and as per the circular instructions of High Court on administrative side in ROC No.559/OP Cell-E/2022 dated 20.10.2022, ROC No.560/OP Cell/2022 dated 23.11.2022 and ROC No.101/OP Cell/2023 dated 12.10.2023, all the five year old matters shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

9. Having considered the several requests of the petitioner, learned trial Court had given several opportunities for more than two and half years and after exhausting all his delayed tactics and after submitting arguments, when the matter is posted for judgment, petitioner filed the said petition, to receive documents. Facts of the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Varsha Garg vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors1 are entirely different and as such, the said principle cannot be applied to the present case at hand.

10. The other reason assigned by the learned trial Court in respect of the nature of the documents, six years delay in filing the same and other allied aspects are also found convincing. Absolutely there are no merits in the petition. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that one opportunity may be given to the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration as several opportunities are given to the petitioner from November, 2023 to April, 2026. Entertaining this petition is nothing but abuse the process of law and as such, declined to allow the petition.

11. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-payable to the respondent No.2 within one week from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court.

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.