IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4308 OF 2025 Between: Ambati Swarnalatha, W/o Ramakrishna, aged about 32 years,House Wife, R/o Davuluru Village, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur District. ...Petitioner/ Defacto Complainant AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,iRep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 2. Ambati Velangani Raju, S/o Abraham, aged about 33 years, R/o S.C.Colony, Industrial Area, Yerrabalem Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 3. Ambati Anusha, W/o A.Velangani Raju,aged about 32 years, R/o S.C.Colony, Industrial Area, Yerrabalem Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 4. Battu Suseela, W/o Dhanaraju, age 40 years, R/o S.C.Colony Industrial Area, Yerrabalem Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur 5. Ambati Mariyamma, W/o Abraham, age 60 years, R/o S.C.Colony Industrial Area, Yerrabalem Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District ...Respondent / Proposed Accused Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to, grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.615 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum- Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri. J I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.615 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N A Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No. 1 The Court made the following 1 CRLP.No.4308 of 2025 * APHC010199092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4308/2025 Between: Ambati Swarnalatha ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 CRL.P.No.4308 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.4308 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.644 of 2023 in C.C. No.615 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to array respondents 3 to 5 as co-accused. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 10.12.2024. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to the evidence available on record. 4. This Court, vide order dated 22.04.2025, directed the learned counsel to furnish a copy of the chief-examination of the prosecution witnesses, which have been placed on record. ■ V 3 CRLP.No.4308 of 2025 vN i 5. Upon perusal of the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3, and after due V' consideration, the learned Magistrate concluded that no prima facie evidence exists against the proposed accused to warrant their summoning as additional accused for cognizance and trial. The allegation against respondents 3 to 5 is that the petitioner was forced by the accused to transfer an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the accounts of respondents 3 to 5 in Oriental Bank and the State Bank of India. This assertion is reiterated in the chief examination of PWs.2 and 3. However, upon thorough examination of the record, it is evident that mere receipt of funds by respondents 3 to 5, in the absence of any evidence of their direct involvement, does not constitute sufficient grounds for implicating them as co accused under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In cases concerning offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, the role of the alleged accused must be clearly established. The learned Magistrate has rendered a well- reasoned order after analyzing the evidence on record and relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh v. State of Haryana\ ^2019 see 2168 4 CRLP.No.4308 of 2025 i 7. Considering the submissions made and the settled legal \ principles, this Court finds no substantial ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Magistrate. 8. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// S' tON OFFICER To, -Additional Civil 1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur District. Mangalagiri Rural, Police Station, Guntur 2. The station House Officer District. N A Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] ic Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri 4. Two CCs to Public 5. Two CD Copies PR (gsg) : V HIGH COURT DATED: 2810412025 ORDER CRLP.No.4308 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRLP ■