1 APHC010664832022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9743, 9744 & 9746/2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9743/2022: Between: Avs Bhanu Murthy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9744/2022: Between: A.v.s Bhanu Murthy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9746/2022: Between: A.v.s. Bhanu Murthy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9743, 9744 & 9746/2022 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in these Criminal Petitions is one and the same, at the request of the learned counsel on both sides, these matters are heard together and passed the following Common order. 2. Heard Sri V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State is in attendance. Notice is not served on the respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier, the respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. During the pendency of the said case, the parties arrived at compromise. In that regard, these subject cheques in the present cases were issued by the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that cheques were issued on 26.07.2019, they were presented before the bank 03.10.2019, 19.10.2019 & 22.10.2019. Meanwhile, the petitioner has paid nearly Rs.60,000/- to the respondent No.2 through bank account. Without deducting the said amount, the respondent No.2 lodged the private complaints by addressing the cheques as it is. It is not sustainable under law. 4. Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the material placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the contentions raised in the present petitionsare a matter of defence to be 4 established during the course of trial. This Court while sitting in the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot decide the factual aspects of the matter by appreciating the evidence as if it is a mini trial. In that view, the petitions deserve dismissal. 5. In the result, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. However, the learned Trial Judge is requested to dispose of these three cases by conducting simultaneous Trial 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. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 19.02.2025 UPS 5 89 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9743, 9744 & 9746/2022 Dt.19.02.2025 UPS