1 APHC010609542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11875/2025 Between: 1. THIRUPATHI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.APPARAO,MALE, AGED 60 YEARS,R/O.SANTHI NAGAR, 4 STREET,NEAR STATE BANK OF INDIA,ELURU, ELURU DIST., A.P., ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TALLAPUDI POLICE STATION. THROUGHBY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI. 2. 2 GANTA SIVARAMA KRISHNA KRISHNA, S/O. RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. EX. VICE SURPANCH, R/O. TADIPUDI VILLAGE, TALLAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G.V.ANAND KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11875 of 2025 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner /Accused against the Order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5822 of 2025 in C.C.No.583 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur. 2. Heard Sri G.V.Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC in C.C. No. 583 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur. After completion of the prosecution evidence, when the matter was coming up for defence, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.5822 of 2025 under Section 348 of the BNSS, seeking to summon the Branch Manager, SBI, Prakkilanka Branch, to prove that PW1 had issued a cheque to him dated 21.08.2019 for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which was deposited by the petitioner but was returned dishonoured. Learned counsel would further submit that, as part of their defence relating to another transaction, PW1 had issued a cheque to the accused for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which was presented to the bank and was dishonoured. 3 4. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution is that PW1 gave an amount to the accused, believing the accused’s words that he would secure a job for him in return for liquid cash. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, during the cross- examination of PW1, PW1 denied issuing such a cheque, and in those circumstances, they filed the petition. The learned Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that, according to the statements of PW1, the amount was given to the accused in liquid cash, and therefore the accused’s oral assertion that a cheque had been issued and dishonoured could not be believed. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned trial Judge, under a misconception of fact, assumed that it was the accused who had issued the cheque, and on that basis dismissed the petition, whereas in reality that is not the defence being put forward before the trial Court. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the State and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. Considering the submissions made and on a cursory perusal of the impugned order, it is evident, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the learned trial Judge proceeded under a misconception of fact. While the defence of the accused was that PW1 had issued a cheque to the petitioner, the petition was dismissed on the premise that it was the accused who had issued the cheque to PW1, which was said to be contrary to the defence of PWs 1 to 5, and that the Court need not summon the Branch Manager on a mere oral assertion. In fact, the defence of the accused is that 4 PW1 issued a cheque to the petitioner dated 21.08.2019 for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which was deposited in the bank and was returned dishonoured. In these facts and circumstances, when the matter was coming up for PW1’s cross-examination, the accused had rightly filed the petition to summon the Branch Manager to prove his defence. 8. In such circumstances, the learned trial Judge, acting under a misconception of fact, dismissed the petition, which is not sustainable in law or on the facts of the case. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5822 of 2025 in C.C.No.583 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur. The learned Trial Judge is directed to issue summons to the witnesses and to see that the matter be disposed of as expeditiously as possible without granting any adjournments in a casual manner since the C.C. is of the year 2019. 9. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:17.11.2025 Asr 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.11875 OF 2025 Dt.17.11.2025 Asr