APHC010482412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9585/2025 Between: 1. JALLURI DAIVA SUNEETHA, W/O. KAVALA KANNAYYA, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC HEAD MASTER, MPP SCHOOL R/O. 1.85, ANNADEVARAPETA, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. KAPPALAMARY RATNAM, W/O KAVALA KANNAYYA, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO. 1-120, ANNADEVARAPETA, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVRI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9585/2025 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’) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the docket order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur, in Crl.M.P.No.4905 of 2025 in C.C.No.450 of 2019. 2. Heard Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, 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 is the accused facing trial in C.C.No. 450 of 2019 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He would further submit that the petitioner/accused filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., seeking to recall the PW1 for further cross examination, since the earlier counsel on record did not cross examine the PW1 on several aspects such as the financial capacity of PW1. But the said petition was dismissed vide docket order dated 23.07.2025. He finally prays that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to prosecute the matter. 3 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the petition is filed at the stage of defence arguments to drag on the proceedings pending before the Trial Court. 5. Considering the submissions and upon a fair perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, the learned Judge has observed that after the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused requested time for adducing defence evidence. However, when the matter was taken up for the defence evidence, the accused did not produce any evidence. The learned Judge further observed that the present petition, filed without assigning any reasonable grounds, seeks to recall PW1 for further cross-examination. It was also noted that the present counsel came on record in the year 2022, and the cross-examination of PW1 was concluded at length on 16.11.2022. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same by exercising inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 16.09.2025 UPS 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9585/2025 Dated.16.09.2025 UPS 148