IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 2553 & 2554 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2553 OF 2025 Between: Bapanapalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Gangadhara Rao, Aged 42 Years, R/o. 2"^^ Floor, Hare Rama Hare Krishan Provisions Building, Rajivnagar Extension Ongole, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...Respondent 2. Puvvada Ramakasi Rao, S/o. Seshaiah, Aged 40 Years, R/o. D.No.21/1/71, Upstairs Ganugapalem, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to setting aside / quash // the order dated 18.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.82 of 2025 in CC.No.303 of 2018 on the file of the court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, Prakasam District. i.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in CC.No.303 of 2018 on the file of the court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2554 OF 2025 Between: Bapanapalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Gangadhara Rao, Aged 42 Years, 2 Floor, Hare Rama Hare Krishan Provisions Building, Rajivnagar Extension Ongole, Prakasam District. R/o. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati. ...Respondent 2. Puvvada Ramakasi Rao, S/o. Seshaiah, Aged D.No.21/1/71, Upstairs, Ganugapalem, Ongole, Prakasam District. 40 Years, R/o. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to setting aside / the order dated 18.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2025 in CC.No.303 of 2018 on the file of the court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate Class, Ongole. quash of First I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all proceedings in CC.No.303 of 2018 on the file of the court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, pending disposal of the criminal further petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, Advocate for the Petitioner Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2. and the Public none appeared for the The Court made the following: ■ / 1 CRLP. No.2553 of 2025 & CRLP. No.2554 of 2025 APHC010108952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2553/2025 K [3457] Between: Bapanapalli Venkateswara Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2554/2025 Between: Bapanapalli Venkateswara Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 CRLP. No.2553 of 2025 & CRLP. No.2554 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No. 255Z OF 2025 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2fi54 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER- 1. These criminal petitions are filed seeking to set aside the respective orders, dated 18.02.2025, in Crl.M.P.Nos.81 and 82 of 2025 in C.C. No.303 of 2018, passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole. 2. Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2025 was filed seeking a direction to refer Exs.P.2 and P.3, the cheque and its counterfoil, to the A.P. Forensic Laboratory, Mangalagiri, for expert analysis to ascertain whether the ‘name’ written on the Ex.P.2 cheque was authored by the same individual who wrote Ex.P.3 counterfoil, and whether the date ‘18.01.2018’ and the amount ‘Rs.5,00,000/-’ appearing on the cheque were written by the same person. 3. Crl.M.P.No.82 of 2023 was filed for reopening the defence evidence. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was liable to discharge only a sum of Rs.50,000/- discharged. However, the complainant has alteration of the instrument by interpolating the amount and which has been duly resorted to material / CRLP. No.2553 of 2025 & CRLP. No.2554 of 2025 tampering with the cheque. As such, the same were sought to be sent for an expert opinion. 5. The learned Magistrate has dismissed Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2025 by observing that the petitioner has not denied the signature on the cheque and the contents of the cheque can be filed by the holder in due course. It was also observed that since there was no dispute regarding the signature of the cheque, the learned Magistrate has not referred Exs.P.2 and P.3, the cheque and its counterfoil, to the forensic expert opinion. The learned Magistrate has also dismissed Crl.M.P.No.82 of 2025 on the ground that the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable as the petitioner did not dispute the signature on the cheque and that the matter is posted for examination of the accused. The learned Magistrate further observed that the matter is coming for arguments, and at this stage, the petitions filed by the petitioner seeking the reopening of the evidence and recall of the witnesses are not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petitions are filed. 6. The ground on which the petitioner sought for referring the cheque for an expert opinion is to ascertain whether the person who filled the name in the second line of the cheque has also filled the counterfoil Ex.P.3 and that the whether the date mentioned on the / 4 ' CRLP. No.2553 of 2025 i_ CRLP. No.2554 of 2025 Cheque and the amounts mentioned on the cheque were written by the same person. 7. The manner in which any individual fills the cheque is immaterial, provided that the drawee does not dispute the authenticity of the signature affixed thereto. 8. In the present facts of the case, it is appropriate to refer section 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with the concept of ‘Holder in Due Course’, which reads as under: & ‘Holder in due course means any person who for consideration became the possessor of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer, or the payee or indorsee thereof, if payable to order, before the amount mentioned in it became payable, and without having sufficient cause to believe that any defect existed in the title of the person from whom he derived his title.” 9. A person who fills the cheque and the handwriting in the counterfoil are different aspects and legally immaterial to the Court. The holder in due course has the discretion to entrust the cheque for presentation at the bank to any individual, regardless of who fills the counterfoil. 10. The learned Magistrate has rightly considered the issue by observing that there are no valid grounds to refer the cheque and its counterfoil for expert opinion. Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the respective orders impugned in these criminal petitions. 5 CRLP. No.2553 of 2025 & CRLP. No.2554 of 2025 11. Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are dismissed. 12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i,; //TRUE COPY// SEi OFFICER To 1. The II Additional Munisif Magistrate Court, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. One CC to Sri. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies Pmg sree T HIGH COURT DATED:11/03/2025 1 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.2553 & 2554 of 2025 0 5 AUG 2D?5 X mw ‘a^ . Current Section DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS