IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2314 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Order dt. 31-08-2017 in C.O No. 1039 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, Krishna District. Between: Kuppa Srinivasa Rao, S/o Nagaiah, aged about 43 years, R/o. 10-4-45, mallikharjuna Pet, Vijayawada-1, Krishna District. ...Appellant / Complainant AND 1. Davu Venkateswara Rao S/o Nagabhushanam, aged about 71 years, R/o.31-22-9, Potineni Vari Street, Machavaram,Vijayawada-4, Krishna District. ...Respondent / Accused 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. ...Respondents w Counsel for the Appellant :SRI. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : SRI. P MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 1 <♦ APHC010593992018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2314/2018 Between; Kuppa Srinivasa Rao ...APELLANT AND ...RESPODENT(S) Davu Venkateswara Rao and Others Counsel for the Apellant: TSAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respodent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.P MOHAN RAO The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2314/2018 JUDGMENT: Impugning the Order dated 31.08.2017 in C.C.No.1039 of 2016 on the file of Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, the present Criminal Appeal is filed. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the Appellant. 2. Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and Sri P. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/Accused are in attendance. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant 3. herein is the complainant before the Trial Court in C.C.No.1039 of 2016. The complainant filed a private complaint before the Trial Court against the respondent No.1/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The complaint was dismissed for non prosecution and the Accused was acquitted by the learned Trial Judge. For the better understanding, the order passed by the learned Trial 4. Judge is extracted hereunder: “Complainant absent. No representation tiii 3.40 P.M. Accused present. Compiaint is dismissed for default. Accused is acquitted. ” i-i 3 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complainant is very much ready to prosecute his matter. On the given day, he could not appear before the Court. His absence on that particular day is not willful or 5. deliberate. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that civil suit is also filed for recovery of amount in O.S.No. 464 of 2016 on the file of Court of VII Additional Judge, Vijayawada and the same is coming up for trial. The appellant is diligent in prosecuting his case. Learned counsel finally submits that an opportunity may be given to the appellant to workout his remedy before the Trial Court. Considering the submissions made and a perusal of the impugned 6. order passed by the learned Trial Judge, the complainant failed to appear before the Court. The Court waited till 3:40 P.M., none represented for the complainant and the complaint was dismissed for non prosecution. But the Order is bereft of any details as to the purpose for which the matter is posted on that particular day and the reason for calling of the complainant and the reason as to why the presence of the complainant is required on that particular day. In absence of any such reasons, the impugned order is not tenable under law. 7. In the light of the aforementioned premises, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 10.02.2025. The Trial Court need not issue any notices to the parties. Learned Trial Judge is requested to proceed with the matter and 4 0 dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible without granting any adjournment in a casual way by mere asking. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR l! SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The VII Additional Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District (with records) 2. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, Krishna District (with records) 3. Kuppa Srinivasa Rao, S/o Nagaiah, aged about 43 years, R/o. 10-4-45, mallikharjuna Pet, Vijayawada-1, Krishna District 4. Davu Venkateswara Rao S/o Nagabhushanam, aged about 71 years, R/o.31-22-9, Potineni Vari Street, Machavaram,Vijayawada-4, Krishna District. 5. One CC to Sri. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. P Mohan Rao Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 9. Three CD Copies PR GSC Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 10.02.2025 HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 4 ORDER CRLA.No.2314 of 2018 OF ANO/y^ S 2 3 JAN 2025 Co, Current Section ALLOWING THE CRLA