1 APHC010453952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9295/2025 Between: 1. CHAKRAVARTHULA GANGA KUMAR,, S/O LATE PADMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O D.NO.27-9-32, DIGUMARTHI VARI STREET, KAKINADA. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATHI. 2. BANDARU VENKATESWA RAO, S/O B.V.S MURTHY, AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.4-50, PENUGUDURU VILLAGE, KARAPA MANDAL ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. T D PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9295 of 2025 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner, seeking to quash the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, in Crl.M.P.No.1005 of 2025 in C.C.No.1420 of 2019. 2. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is a complaint who filed a private complaint against unofficial respondent for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was examined as PW1 in the said case and he was cross examined at length. PW1 was recalled earlier also to cross examine. Now, the respondent No.2/accused filed Crl.M.P.No.1005 of 2025 in C.C.No.1420 of 2019 before the trial Court to recall PW1 for cross examination relating to financial condition and income tax returns, in which, the learned trial Court allowed the said petition on terms. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the impugned order is a well reasoned order and the learned trail Judge has recalled PW1 for cross examination by putting some conditions and the said petition was allowed on terms that the respondent No.2/accused to pay Rs.1,000/- and the accused has to cross examine PW1 3 on the day he appears or else the petition stands dismissed. With these observations, the learned trial Judge considered the petition filed by the accused. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. However, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible without granting further adjournments in a casual manner upon mere asking. The cross examination of PW1 is relating to financial conditions and income tax returns of PW1 and the accused is not permitted to put any questions which were already covered by earlier cross examination of PW1. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 09.09.2025 ASR 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9295 of 2025 Dated.09.09.2025 Asr