APHC010293002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 667 OF 2025 Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated; 03.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P..No.110/2025 in C.C. No. 1005/2023 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada. Between: Brunga Ramana Rao, s/o. Nagatta, Hindu, aged about 58 years, R/o. D,No. 13-2- 413, Railway Station Road, Macherla, Guntur District - 522426 ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Amaravati. 2. Bandi Panduranga Vittal, S/o. Radha Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged 59 years, R/o. Flat No. SRWA 478, 3rd Floor, Vasistha Residency, Sri Nagar Colony, 4th Line, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant to stay on all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1005/2023 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Duggirala Subash Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri V Srinivasula Reddy The Court made the following order: APHC010293002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 667/2025 Between: 1.BRUNGA RAMANA RAO, S/0. NAGATTA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/0. D,NO. 13-2- 413, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, MACHERLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522426 ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI. 2.BANDI PANDURANGA VITTAL, S/0. RADHA KRISHNA RAO, HINDU, AGED 59 YEARS, R/0. FLAT NO. SRWA 478, 3RD FLOOR, VASISTHA RESIDENCY, SRI NAGAR COLONY, VIJAYAWADA 4TH LINE, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to Set aside the order dated; 03.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P..No.110 /2025 in C.C. No. 1005/2023 on the file of the Hon’bie I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada and unmark Ex.P7 which was adduced as evidence subsequent to the impugned order and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to stay on all further proceedings in C.C. no. 1005/2023 on the file of the Hon’bie I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VSRINIVASULA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case was filed by the petitioner herein/accused against the Order, dated 03.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2025 in Calendar Case No.1005 of 2023 by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada. The respondent No.2 is the complainant in Calendar Case No. 1005 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada filed against the petitioner herein/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. While the case is pending before the trial Court for cross-examination of respondent No.2/complainant as P.W1, the respondent No.2/ complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2025 under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to mark the document vide Memorandum of Understanding, dated 03.10.2023 ended between the respondent No.2/complainant and petitioner/ accused, 2023 as an exhibit. 2. The petitioner/accused filed counter, contending that the said document is not genuine and false and does not bear the signatures of petitioner/accused. It is further contended that execution of MoU could not be proved since the 3. 4 genuineness of the said document is not profound and the same cannot be admitted. A perusal of material on record filed by the petitioner/accused goes to show that the trial Court allowed the 4. Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2025 on 03.06.2025. The material documents further discloses that the trial Court vide proceedings recorded in Calendar Case No.1005 of 2003, dated 03.06.2025 passed the following order: “CrI.M.P. is allowed. Complainant present. Accused absent. 355 filed. Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are marked. For cross of P.W1, call on 9.6.2025.” Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner/accused filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 5. 6. Heard. Perused the record. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner/accused filed counter in the said petition pending before the trial Court, but the petitioner/accused was not given an opportunity to submit his contentions, as he was absent on the date of adjournment and the trial Court allowed the petition and marked the Memorandum of Understanding, dated 03.10.2023 as Ex.P7. 5 8. A perusal of the contents of the petition and the counter in Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2025 in C.C.No.1005 of 2023 filed before the trial Court goes to show that the Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the respondent No.2/ complainant and petitioner/accused subsequent to receipt of summons by the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.1005 of 2023, as he requested time to fulfill the legally enforceable debt. Admittedly, the petitioner/accused denies the execution of said MoU, dated 03.10.2023 and he challenged the genuineness of the said document, as it does not bear his signature. Indisputably, the Order of the learned trial Judge is not on merits and it appears that the said order was passed unilaterally, as the petitioner/accused, though filed counter, was absent on 03.06.2025 and as such, he could not put-forth his 9. contention. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if, the matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal by giving opportunity to both side parties, it would meet the ends of justice. 10. With the above observation, Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2025 in Calendar Case No. 1005 of 2023 is remanded to the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, with a direction to dispose of the same, afresh, by 6 giving equal opportunity to both parties, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of setting-aside the Order, dated 03.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2025 in Calendar Case No.1005 of 2023 by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate; Vijayawada District. Krishna 2. One CC to Sri Duggirala Subash Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V Srinivasula Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 ORDER CRLRC No. 667 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC