APHC010441702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8903/2025 Between: 1. SAI SREENIVASA CONSTRUCTIONS, REP.BY YALLAMA RAJU MADHUSUDHAN RAJU S/O.SUBRAMANYAM RAJU, R/O.KUMMARAPALLI H/O.GORANCHERUVU, GALIVEEDU MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P. 2. YALLAMA RAJU MADHUSUDHANA RAJU, S/O.SUBRAMANYAM RAJU, PROPRIETOR OF SRI SAI SREENIVASA CONSTRUCTIONS, KUMMARAPALLE, H/O.GORANCHERUVU, GALIVEEDU MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI. 2. V R VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O. VARADHA REDDY AGED 54 YEARS, R/O. ADDAVARIPALLE H/O. GUNDLURU VILLAGE AND POST KALIKIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, NEW ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8903/2025 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2, seeking to quash the order dated 21.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 590/2025 in C.C. No. 263/2024, by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Heard Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, without considering the contents of their counter, the learned trial Judge allowed the petition filed by the complainant. In fact, the petitioners came to know about the ex parte decree only after receiving the petition; until then, they were not aware of the ex parte decree passed against them in the year 2025. But the learned trial Judge, without considering these aspects, simply allowed the petition filed by the complainant. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon a fair look at the material placed on record, apart from the impugned order passed by the Trial Judge, and considering the application filed by the complainant to receive the certified copy of an agreement between the petitioners and the complainant, this Court does not find any merit in the petition to admit. The order passed by the learned Trial Judge is a well- reasoned one. 6. In that view, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all such contentions in the Trial Court. The learned Trial Judge may appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioners and take an appropriate decision according to law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 08.09.2025 UPS 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8903/2025 Dated.08.09.2025 UPS 102