IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5734 OF 2024 Between: Mekala Hari Babu, ,S/o.Sankara Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No.1- 140-3, V.N.Puram, Podili. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor High ofA.P., Amaravathi 2. ByrapuneniTirupathi Rao,, S/o.Adinarayana, aged about 58 years,R/o. near N.T.R. Statute Kammapalem, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.(Complalnant) 1. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition praying that in the circumstances the High Court begs to present the above Criminal Revision in this Hon’ble Court being aggrieved by order Dt.03-07-2024 in CrI. M.P. No.506 of 2024 in C.C. No. 520 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate ;; Ongole Prakasam District - f I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 520 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate Ongole, Prakasam District This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Dharma Teja M .Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri SS Rama Krishna Prasad Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following ORDER : r' APHC010353672024 m IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION No: 5734/2024 Between: 1.MEKALA HARI BABU, ,S/O.SANKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-140-3, V.N.PURAM, PODILI. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH OFA.P., AMARAVATHI. 2.BYRAPUNENITIRUPATHI RAO, S/0.ADINARAYANA ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/0. KAMMAPALEM, ONGOLE DISTRICT.(COMPLALNANT). AGED N.T.R. STATUTE PRAKASAM NEAR TOWN ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. DHARMA TEJA M Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD The Court made the following: 2 C" THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION No: 5734 OF 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri M.Dharma Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S.Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel for unofficial respondent and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an accused in C.C.520/2017 on the file of learned II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, at Ongole, Prakasam District for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; he filed an application U/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.P-1 cheque and Ex.P-7 promissory note to a hand writing expert for comparison of the signatures of the accused and hand writings of the complainant available on the cheque and promissory note. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has no acquaintance with the complainant and that the promissory note was a forged document, and therefore, he requested the learned Magistrate to send the cheque and the promissory note to a hand writiqg expert for his opinion on the writings available on the cheque and the promissory note; but, the learned Magistrate refused the request of the accused that he filed application i 3 after lapse of several years to protract the trial the order of the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in law. proceedings: therefore, 4. The learned counsel for unofficial respondent/complainant would submit that there is no dispute that a legal notice was issued to the accused by the complainant, after dishonor of the cheque mandated U/s.138 of N.I.Act; the accused received the notice and did not issue any reply at the earliest point denying the contention of the complainant regarding issuance of cheque and execution of the promissory note; his contention was that blank cheque and blank promissory note signed by the accused were used in the name of the complainant for unlawful gain; and in the light of said facts and circumstances, and as the application was filed after 7 years of appearance of the accused before the learned Magistrate, the request of the petitioner was rightly refused by the learned Magistrate, as the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings, though the is pending for the last 7 or 8 years before the learned Magistrate. as case 5. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that would arise for consideration in this Criminal Petition is as under: 4 r "Whether there are grounds to invoke section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.506/2024 in C.C.520/2017 on the file of learned II Addl.Judl.Magistrae of First Class at Ongole, Prakasam District”? 6. POINT: There is no dispute that the complaint against the petitioner for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act was filed in the year 2017. The present application was filed in the year 2024. There is no dispute that the petitioner/accused did not give any reply notice to the notice issued by the complainant U/s.138 of N.I.Act, soon after dishonor of the impugned cheque for “insufficient funds” in the account of the petitioner/accused. 7. !t appears that the contention of the petitioner is that the blank cheque and blank promissory note signed by him were pressed into service in the name of the complainant for unlawful gain. Therefore, in the light of said facts and circumstances, where under, the petitioner admits his signature on the cheque and promissory note, and thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to send the impugned cheque and promissory note to a hand writing expert for his opinion with regard to signatures of the accused on the cheque and promissory note. 5 % 8. Accordingly, this Court do not find any grounds to invoke section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.506/2024 in C.C.520/2017 on the file of learned II Addl.Judl.Magistrae of First Class at Ongole, Prakasam District, and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR w 'iT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II Addl. Munsif Magistrate Ongole, Prakasam District 2. One CC to Sri. Dharma teja M Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. SS Rama Krishna Prasad Advocate[OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. THREE CD COPIES TAC — • HIGH COURT DATED :24/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5734 of 2024 c- 18 FEB 2025 . Curreni oeciion . m fc DISMISSING THE CRLP