APHC010054712024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 684/2024 Between: 1. KOYI RAJESH BABU, S/O HANUMAIAH, HINDU, AGED YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. T2, LAKSHMI TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, 4TH LINE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523001. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. GADHIRAJU TRIVENI, W/O KRISHNA CHAITANYA, HINDU, AGED YEARS. PROPERTIES, R/O KAIKALURU VILLAGE, KAIKALURU MANDAL, ELURU DIST. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , THROUGH , PUBLIC PROCESUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 Court may be pleased to set aside the orders in CrI.M.P.No.912 in C.C.No.1/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Kaikaluru , allow the CrI.M.P.No.912 in C.C.1/2019, in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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.1/2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class , Kaikaluru, pending disposal of the above Crl.P. and pass such 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 to vacate the interim order dt.01.05.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in CrI.P.No.684 of 2024 and consequently dismissed the criminal petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused, challenging the orders dated 08.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.913 of 2023 in C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru. 2. Heard Sri T.V.V.Koteswararao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner facing trial in C.C.No.1 of 2019 for the offences filed under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru. During the course of trial, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.913 in C.C.No.1 of 2019 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to give opportunity to adduce evidence on behalf of the petitioner/accused. The said petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the present Criminal Petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that petitioner could not pursue the matter before the Court only for four months and he is ready to adduce the evidence and one fair opportunity may be given to the petitioner to adduce evidence before the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the petition stating that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is well reasoned order. The trial Court has clearly mentioned about the adjournments taken by the petitioner and despite imposing costs on several occasions, petitioner did not turn up. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 finally prays for dismissal of the petition. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that after submission of arguments before the trial court, the petitioner preferred the present petition when the matter is coming up for Judgment and in the meanwhile, he obtained stay. He further submits that since the C.C. is of the year 2019 and let there be a direction to the court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. 7. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record as rightly put by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the learned trial Judge categorically mentioned about the number of adjournments which were taken by the petitioner for adducing his evidence. Despite imposing costs on the petitioner/accused to adduce evidence, he did not turn up and matter was dragged for some period under the guise of compromise and that was not succeeded. Then after submitting the arguments before the trial Court, the petitioner has approached this Court. The impugned order is also clear about the intention of the petitioner to drag on the proceedings that cannot be encouraged. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court doesn’t find any merit in the case of the petitioner. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru, is directed to dispose of the C.C.No.1 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible, without granting any adjournments in a casual way by mere asking. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 31.10.2025 M K K HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.684 of 2024 Dated: 31.10.2025 M K K 132