APHC010486312025 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: 9643/2025 Between: 1. KANUMURI VENKATA SATYA GOPALA KRISHNAM RAJU, S/O KANUMURI RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48NYEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.68-10-2A/C4, VIDYUTH NAGAR KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. JUVVADI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O SOMESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, PEDDAMIRAM VILLAGE, KALLA MANDAL, NEAR BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9643/2025 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/complainant, seeking quashment of the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Mobile, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada in Crl.M.P.No.5225 of 2025 in C.C.No.1494 of 2019. 2. Heard Sri B.Ramesh, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Sri K.Satynand, learned counsel representing Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel would submit that vakalath is being filed today for the respondent No.2/accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.1494 of 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for the purpose of examining one Penmetsa Venkata Krishna Raju as a witness on the petitioner’s side. But the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/accused vehemently opposed the present petition and would submit that the petition is filed when the matter 3 is coming up for arguments only to drag on the proceedings before the Trial Court. 5. Considering the submissions made and upon a fair look at the material placed on record and the impugned order, it is observed by the learned Judge that during the cross examination of PW1, the complainant stated that the hand loan was given in the presence of his sister and other family members at Kakinada and now, he claims the loan was given in the presence of Penmetsa Venkata Krishna Raju, which suggests that the petitioner’s own evidence as PW1 contradicts the new version taken by him in the petition. As can be seen from the record, the impugned order is a well-reasoned order, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same by exercising the 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: 9643/2025 Dated.16.09.2025 UPS 150