APHC010200942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4316/2025 Between: 1. MANTHADA RAJESH,, S/O. M.V.SUNDAR RAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 6-83/1, PATHAGUDEN, YENIKEPADU VILLAGE, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (BUT THE 2ND RESPONDENT MISTUASOLY SHOWN THE ADDRESS AS R/O.D.NO.4-83, PRASADAMPADU VILLAGE, VIJAYAWDA RURAL MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521108.) ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI. 2. DONKINA SAMBA SIVA RAO, S/O LATE ESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 32-35-16/1, JAMINDAR STREET, MACHAVARAM, VIJA3AVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PADMANABHAM A 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.666 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the legal notice was sent to an address which is different from the address as mentioned in the promissory note, which, according to the 2nd respondent was allegedly executed at the time of obtaining the hand loan. 3. It is submitted that as per the address mentioned in the promissory note, the petitioner is a resident of D.No.6-83/1, Harijanawada, Enikepadu, Vijayawada. However, the legal notice was addressed to D.No.4-83, Prasadampadu Village. It is submitted that the legal notice was not received by the petitioner, as such cause of action for initiating a complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act could not have arisen for the 2nd respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The only ground for quashing C.C.No.666 of 2020 is that the legal notice was sent by wrong address. The complaint has been pending before the learned Magistrate Court for the last 05 years. The issue relating to whether the notice was sent to the proper address will have to be ascertained by the trial Court when the matter is taken up for trial and the petitioner would have ample opportunity to substantiate his ground by furnishing his correct 3 address as on the date of issuance of the legal notice. These are all factual issues which this Court cannot go into the present proceedings. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 6. In view of the above, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt: 01.07.2025 SR