1 APHC010356132022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5363 of /2022 Between: Patnala Kanaka Ratnam ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. T D PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. AKKANAPRAGADA VENKATA CHINNA NARASIMHA NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure1 1973 seeking quashment of the Order dated 09.06.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2253 of 2022 in CC No.594 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Special Magistrate-IV, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State and Sri AVCN Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.2/de facto Complainant. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is facing the allegations for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the 1 for short ‘the Code’ 2 Negotiable Instruments Act, which is the subject matter of CC No.594 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Special Magistrate-IV, Visakhapatnam. In the said case, respondent No.2/complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.2253 of 2022 seeking amendment to the extent as 537 square yards instead of 630 square yards as mentioned in the complaint and that the Learned Magistrate allowed the said petition vide impugned Order. Learned counsel would submit that the amendment petition is filed only to fill up the lacunas in the case. Hence, prays to allow the Criminal Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the Petition. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 of the Code makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 of the Code jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. The ambit of powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are enunciated in a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts. While sitting in the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court should be 3 convinced that the allowing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of the court or the ends of justice require the proceedings ought to be quashed. No doubt, this Court has ample powers under Section 482 which are to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting invocation of powers under Section 482 have been strongly emphasized in a catena of decisions. To cite a few, State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal2at paras 102 and 103, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra3 at para 57. 8. Keeping in mind, the guiding factors enunciated supra, present case has to be scrutinized. Considering the submissions and a bare perusal of the material on record, Petitioner/Accused has purchased the subject property from respondent No.2/Complainant under a registered sale deed. The consideration was paid by the Accused by way of five cheques out of which two cheques were honoured and remaining three cheques were dishonourerd for the reason ‘insufficient funds’. 09. The grievance of the respondent No.2/Complainant in Crl.M.P. is that extend of the land is wrongly mentioned in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears, inadvertently, the extent of land is mentioned as 630 square yards instead of 537 square yards. The Complainant, after realising the mistake filed Crl.M.P. for amendment and the Learned Magistrate 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 3 (2020) 10 SCC 118 4 after considering the material on record passed a reasoned order. This Court does not find any material to interfere in the matter while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5363 of 2022 24.01.2025 Mjl/*