APHC010476642023 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. 7179/2023 Between: MR. GADE NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. NAGAMALLESWARA RAO AGED 43 YEARS R/O.HOUSE NO.2-315, MAIN ROAD, NEAR PANCHAYATHI OFFICE, VENKATAPALEM, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN 522 503. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATHI 2. DARLA MAHESH, S/O. LATE SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O. DOOR NO.16-16-278, ALLI NAGAR,LST LANE, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. JUVVINA NOOKAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. BALAJI BOLLA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petitions under Section 528 of BNSS have been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.250 of 2023 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil 2 Judge, Guntur for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Sri Juvvina Nookapathi Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the Accused who is facing trial in C.C.No.250 of 2023 before the trial Court for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 N.I.Act. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner was not served with any notice before lodging the complaint in this case and there is no existence of legally enforceable debt between the Complainant and Accused as on the date of issuance of alleged cheque. 3. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 4. None represented for Respondent No.2. 5. The grounds raised by the Petitioner are not sufficient for quashment of the case against him. The reason being, prima facie the complaint shows that a legal notice was got issued by the Complainant through his counsel to the registered address and the postman continuously visited the said place for seven days and the notice was returned unserved. Such being the case, this Court cannot intervene for quashment of the case. So far as the second point about non-existence of any legally enforceable debt is concerned, it is a mixed question of fact and law and this Court cannot conduct mini trial to decide the truth or otherwise of such contention. There are no grounds for quashment and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to raise such contentions before the trial Court and the learned trial Judge is requested to take appropriate decision over the matter in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:20.08.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.7179 / 2023 Dt.20.08.2025 Dinesh