APHC010255662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5514 OF 2025 Between: Chilamakuri Yerriswamy, Aged 50 years, S/o late C. Nagaiah, Door No. 12-2- 75, Ashok Nagar, Ananthapuramu City. ...Petitioners/Complainant AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. ...Respondent 2. P Asraf Basha, Aged 40 years, D.No. 19-4-393-1 Bindela Colony Ananthapuramu City. ...Respondent/Accused Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for records and quash the orders dt 12-12-2024 in Crl.M.P.No.2313 of 2024 in C.C. No. 1204 of 2019 on the file of 1®^ Special Magistrate, Ananthapuramu as confirmed by the orders dt 08-04- 2025 in CrI. Revision Petition No. 11 of 2025 on the District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.1204 of 2019 on the file of the 1®* Special Magistrate, Ananthapuramu. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate for the Petitioner a^d of the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent No. 1. on The Court made the following order: / APHC010255662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5514/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER/yfcCUSED Chilamakuri Yerriswamy AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: / 2 0 ORDER:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2025 which was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Magistrate, Ananthapuramu in CrI.M.P. No.2313 of 2024 i 1 in C.C. No.1204 of 2019. The petitioner filed CrI.M.P. No.2313 of 2024 to bring on record the legal notice dated 22.04.2022. The seeking reason for bringing on the notice dated 22.04.2022 is that the legal notice was sent to his advocate in O.S. No.457 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The counter was filed to the said petition and the learned Magistrate had dismissed the petition, vide order dated learned Magistrate while dismissing the petition observed that after closing the complainant side evidence on 24.07.2024, the accused 12.12.2024. The was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the matter is posted for arguments. It is also observed that the petitioner did not disclose the reason for the proposal to produce the document and that the case was pending from 2019. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition No. 11 of 2025, and the Principal District Revision and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, also dismissed the Revision by upholding the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The present quash petition is filed seeking to set aside the order passed in CrI.M.P. No.2313 of 2024 and in CrI.R.P. No.11 of 2025. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record. \ 3 The order passed by the learned Magistrate is well-considered, and this Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Magistrate. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, in the Revision, has also elaborately considered the issue and found that the petitioner was granted ample opportunity, and that the legal notice was sought to be filed at a belated stage only to fill up the lacunae. A specific finding was recorded by both the trial Court and the Revisional Court that several adjournments were granted by the trial Court, but the complainant did not choose to file the notice, for reasons best known to the petitioner. As such, this Court finds no grounds 4. to interfere. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. 5. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, Amanthapuramu District, A.P. 2. The I Special Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuramu District. 3. One CC to Sri. Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies sree \ HIGH COURT DATED:24/06/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 5514 OF 2025 of 5 2? SEP 2025 „ Current Section fespATCV@^ m f/ DISMISSING THE CRLP