1 APHC010424132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8521/2025 Between: DONTIREDDY SRIRAM REDDY, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS R/O. 60-3-28, FLAT NO.304,VAISHNAVI ELITE BESIDES AMMA KALYANA MANDAPAM SUNNAPU BATTEELA CENTER, VENKATESWARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. MEEGADA VEERA SATYA, S/O. M.RAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC PROPRIETOR OF SATYA FISH COMPANY R/O. FLAT NO. 4F-405, VAISHNAVI ELITE BESIDES AMMA KALYANA MANDAPAM SUNNAPU BATTEELA CENTER, VENKATESWARAPURAM VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. UDAY KUMAR VAMPUGADAVALA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.802 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge –cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First 2 Class, Bhimavaram, for the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18811. 2. Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused would submit that, the complaint filed by Respondent No.1 / Complainant is barred by limitation. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, the subject cheque was issued on 15.07.2021 by the Petitioner and on presentation, the same was returned on 16.07.2021. On that, Respondent No.1 got issued a legal notice to the Petitioner on 11.08.2021 and the Petitioner received the same on 12.08.2021 and gave a reply on 30.08.2021. It is further submitted that the complaint was signed on 30.10.2021 and the same was registered on 05.11.2021 and hence, the complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 138 of N.I.Act. Learned Senior Counsel would finally submit that, on the ground of expiry of the limitation period alone, the case against the Petitioner is liable to be quashed. 3. None appeared for Respondent No.1. 4. During the period of Covid Pandemic, the Hon’ble Apex Court relaxed the period of limitation vide Order dated 10.05.2024 in Misc.Petition No.1624 of 2021. For ready reference, relevant para of the said order is extracted hereunder: “6. The Supreme Court in the case of Re : Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation, has passed the following order :- 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on 1 For short ‘ N.I.Act’ 3 public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: 1. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 7. In view of the aforesaid direction, it is clear that the period of limitation was already extended by the Supreme Court and in fact, the appeal should have been treated as within limitation. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 12.3.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in appeal No.309/appeal/20-21 is hereby set aside. The application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed in view of relaxation in the period of limitation granted by the Supreme Court and the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa directed to hear the appeal finally on merits. 9. With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of.” 5. In view of the relaxation of the period of limitation in the above order by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the contention of the Petitioner that the complaint 4 filed by the Complainant is barred by limitation, has no force. As such, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for quashment of the case against the Petitioner on the ground of limitation. The petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case and the learned trial Judge shall decide the case strictly in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:20.08.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.8521 of 2025 Dt.20.08.2025 Dinesh