APHC010491312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9728 OF 2025 Between: 1. Mummadi Jangam Reddy, S/o Eswar Reddy, aged about 46 years. Resident of Prakash Nagar, Opposite to Collectorate, Kadapa City. 1. THE STATE OF AP, Through the S.H.O., Rayachoty Urban P.S., represented by its Public Prosecutor, 2. Akkisetty Venkataratnam, S/o A. Subbanna, aged about 55 years. Junior Assistant, Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rayachoty, Resident of D.No. 2/44, Nagarajupeta, Kadapa City. Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to quash the Order of dismissal dated 26.08.2025 in CrI.M.P. No. 188 of 2025 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge First Class, Rayachoty, and to allow the petition in CrI.M.P. No. 188 of 2025 in C.C. No. 2 of 2016 on the file of the said learned Magistrate, and to such 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9728 OF 2025 1. Mummadi Jangam Reddy, S/o Eswar Reddy, aged about 46 years. Resident of Prakash Nagar, Opposite to Collectorate, Kadapa City. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Through the S.H.O., Rayachoty Urban P.S., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi. 2. Akkisetty Venkataratnam, S/o A. Subbanna, aged about 55 years. Junior Assistant, Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rayachoty, Resident of D.No. 2/44, Nagarajupeta, Kadapa City. ...Respondents nder Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to quash the Order of dismissal dated 26.08.2025 in CrI.M.P. No. 188 of 2025 in C.C. No. 2 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, and to allow the petition in CrI.M.P. No. 188 of 2025 in C.C. No. 2 of 2016 on the file of the said learned Magistrate, and to IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 1. Mummadi Jangam Reddy, S/o Eswar Reddy, aged about 46 years. ...Petitioner 1. THE STATE OF AP, Through the S.H.O., Rayachoty Urban P.S., High Court of A.P., Amaravathi. 2. Akkisetty Venkataratnam, S/o A. Subbanna, aged about 55 years. Junior Assistant, Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rayachoty, ...Respondents nder Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to quash the Order of in C.C. No. 2 of 2016 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, and to allow the petition in CrI.M.P. No. 188 of 2025 in C.C. No. 2 of 2016 on the file of the said learned Magistrate, and to pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 2 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty pending disposal of the main petition, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9728 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is filed seeking to quash the Order of dismissal dated 26.08.2025 in CrI.M.P. No. 188 of 2025 in C.C. No. 2 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, and to allow the petition in CrI.M.P. No. 188 of 2025 in C.C. No. 2 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty. 2. Heard Sri Syed Kaleemula, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. A. Lakshmi Prasanna, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate dismissed the application without application of judicial mind and on technicalities relating to the mentioning of provision under BNSS instead of Cr.P.C. It is contended that the right of the accused to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to summon relevant documents in his defence and that the impugned order violated such right. Reliance is placed on the principle that “wrong mentioning of a provision is not fatal” (see P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173). 4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, as the application is only intended to delay the matter. It is argued that the case dates back to 2012 and has already reached the stage of 4 arguments, and that the present attempt of the petitioner is nothing but dilatory. 5. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed on record that the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of defence evidence for summoning certain records from the District Court, Kadapa. The learned Magistrate dismissed the same. Having regard to the fact that the case relates to the year 2012, that trial has already reached the stage of arguments, and that the documents sought are not shown to be immediately necessary for adjudication of the charges, this Court is of the opinion that the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 SCC 568] and Sarala Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement [2025 SCC Online SC 1063] has held that process for summoning documents can be refused if intended for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice. Applying the said principles, no interference is warranted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. DR.JUSTICEVENKATAJYOTHIRMAIPRATAPA Dt.22.09.2025 KKV 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9728 OF 2025 22.09.2025 KKV