1 APHC010223262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 313/2025 Between: 1. NAGAREDDY AMOGH HEMANTH REDDY, S/O. LATE VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT40 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.402, B-BLOCK, PAVANI ELITE APARTMENT, 0PP. SAIBABA TEMPLE, CHILDREN PARK, ADITYA NAGAR, NELLORE. ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. ALVARSETTY CHENCHAIAH, S/O. CHENCHU RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. JB-85, OLD JUDGE BUNGALOW, BACKSIDE OF PARK, MULAPETA NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPODENT(S): Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to Pleased to allow this Criminal Appeal by setting aside the judgment dt. 06.01.2025 passed in C.C. No.491 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore and consequently restore the complaint on file and to pass such other order or orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Special leave to prefer the present Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dt.06-01-2025 passed in CC.No.491 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class, Nellore and receive the Criminal Appeal on file in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PANCHAGNULA RISHYENDRA SAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The present criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellant / complainant seeking to set aside the judgment dated 06.01.2025 passed in C.C.No.491 of 2018 on the file of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore and consequently restore the complaint on file. 2. Heard Sri Panchagnula Rishyendra Sai, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the 1st respondent-State and Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant herein filed a private complaint against the 2nd respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was 3 dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned counsel would submit that the matter was coming up for further cross-examination of the complainant before the trial Court. Due to unavoidable reasons, the complainant could not appear before the Court. Unfortunately, the counsel on record also did not make representation before the trial Court, which made the Court to dismiss the complaint for default. Learned counsel would further submit that the subject cheque is for Rs.3,00,000/-. The complainant is very much ready to prosecute the matter. A fair opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute his case. 4. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that despite the conditional orders passed by the Court, the complainant did not choose to appear before the Court. The impugned judgment of the trial Court is clear on the point that on several occasions, conditional orders have been passed against the complainant to give his evidence. But the complainant did not turn up. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would further submit that there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complainant could not appear before the Court on two occasions due to unavoidable reasons, but it is not deliberate. Having filed the private complaint, he is ready to prosecute the matter. A last opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute the case. 4 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the impugned judgment, the fact remains that despite conditional order passed for appearance of the complainant, on the given date, for further cross- examination, the complainant could not appear before the Court. Learned trial Judgment dismissed the complaint for default. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as subject cheque is worth of Rs.3,00,000/- and the absence of the complainant on the given date is not deliberate, it is apposite to allow the appeal by remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law. 7. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law. Learned counsel representing both parties are requested to direct their parties to appear before the Court on 14.07.2025 without fail. Learned trial Judge is requested to proceed with the matter and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible without granting any further adjournments to the parties by mere asking and dispose of the case according to law. In case, the complainant repeats the same lethargy, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the matter and pass appropriate judgment. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 02.07.2025 ARR 5 35 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 313/2025 Dt.02.07.2025 ARR