APHC010595452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11585/2025 Between: KUCHIMANCHI SAVITRI, W/O SUBRAMANYAM,AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O MOGHALRAJPURAM,VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. KOTARI SRINIVAS, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO,AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. 19- 113/1,MURALINAGAR, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA. 2. THE STATE OF AP, REP WITH PP HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the Order dated 24.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2040 of 2025in C.C.No.249 of 2023 on the file of the Court of V Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner being Accused has been facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel would further submit that the Accused has filed Crl.M.P.No.2040 of 2025 before the trial Court so summon the Income Tax Authorities for production of income tax returns of the Complainant for the relevant period. It is further submitted that, 2 said application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. Learned counsel would further submit that the matter is coming up for their evidence. It is brought to the notice of the Court that, during cross examination of P.W.1, he stated that, after taking advice from his Auditor he can place his income tax returns before the Court. However, the Complainant did not choose to file such income tax returns before the Court. 3. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 4. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the impugned order, this Court is of the view that, it is a well reasoned order and nothing is there warranting interference of this Court while exercising the inherent power. Petitioner being an Accused, his burden to prove his contentions is only on probability. When the question was asked to P.W.1 in the cross examination, he never told that he has shown the income covering the subject cheque in the income tax returns. That being so, the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. Needless to say that, it is the initial burden on the Complainant to prove the foundational facts even to raise the presumption. 5. In that view, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to raise all such contentions before the trial Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:18.11.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.11585 of 2025 Dt.18.11.2025 Dinesh