IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1688 OF 2011 Between: 1. Payidiparthi Sreeranga Prasad,, S/o Radhakrishna, aged about 34 years. Agriculturist, R/o D.No.2-42/60/1, ILTD Junction, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT AND 1. The state of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravathi. 2. Katta Surya Chandra Rao,, S/o Sarabhalingachari, aged about 48 years. Painter, APSRTC Depot, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto present this Memorandum of CrI.R.C., aggrieved by the order passed in CCSR.No.2096 of 2011, dt. 26-4-2011 on the file of the Court of VI Addl. J.F.C.M., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. LA. NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLRCMP. NO: 2516 OF 2011) , Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances , ^ stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the order passed in CC.Sr.No.2096 of 2011, dt.26-04- 2011 on the file of the Court of the VI Addl. • & • J.F.C.M., Rajahmundry, East same to the original file, pending Godavari District, by restoring the disposal of the CrI.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T S N MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010245812011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0M0 [3521] F, FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1688/2011 Between: Payidiparthi Sreeranga Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TS N MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 26.04.2011 in C.C.SR.No.2096 of 2011 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, in dismissing the complaint for want of presence of the complainant/petitioner, till 3 p.m. on that day. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. None appeared for the respondent No.2 2 Dr.YLR, J ' Crl.R.C.No.l688of 2011 Dated: 25.04.2025 Sri T.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submits that the learned Magistrate h^ not provided one more opportunity to the petitioner, who was complainant before him filing ^case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for brevity the Act’) for recovery/punishing the respondent No.2 for not repaying an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and requests to allow this Criminal Revision Case. 3. 4. 3. 4. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the grounds of the revision petition dq^not contain the reason for non-appearance of the petitioner before learned Magistrate on 26.04.2011, while admitting that huge amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was involved in alleged issuance of cheque and requested to pass appropriate orders taking into account the magnitude of value involved in the issuance of cheque. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in C.C.SR.No.2096 of 2011, passed by the learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. The Inspector of Police, Prakasam Nagar Police Station, Rajahmundry East Godavari District, had got served notice on respondent No.2/accused pursuant to the letter addressed by the Registry on 30.08.2011. The 3 Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.l688 of 2011 Dated: 25.04.2025 respondent N.2 neither chosen to present before this Court nor being represented by any Legal Aid counsel. Admittedly, the value of the cheque is Rs.4,00,000/- and it was dishonored for want of insufficient funds and of 8. course, no reason was mentioned in the revision case for non-appearance of the complainant/petitioner on 26.04.2011 before the learned Magistrate. It is trite that the learned magistrate hastily dismissed the complaint because of the absence of the complainant without considering the magnitude of the value of the cheque amount and providing a penultimate opportunity to the petitioner to appear on next day of adjournment to comply with the principles of natural justice. Had the learned Magistrate provided one more opportunity to the petitioner, he would have appeared before him and submit his case. Indeed, the complainant was appearing before the learned Magistrate for the first time, and the petitioner/complainant should have been diligent in prosecuting the complaint after it was filed. It has to be pointed out that without recording valid reasons, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. The complaint filed on 29.03.2011 and it was posted to 26.04.2011 on which date the learned Magistrate without providing further opportunity atleast for one time as a penultimate measure, hurriedly dismissed the complaint sans assigning any valid reasons. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is not correct legal, prope^r, unsustainable and flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be setaside. was 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l688 of 2011 Dated: 25.04.2025 In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order dated 26.04.2011 passed in C.C.SR.No.2096 of 2011 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. No order as to 9. 10. costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SOI- V.SATYANARAYANA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. The VI Additional Judicial Magistrate, of First Class Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 1. One CC to SRI. T S N MURTHY Advocate [OPUC] 2. The Station House Officer, Prakasam Nagar Police Station Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 3. 4. 5. THREE CD COPIES SD TAC HIGH COURT DATED:25/04/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1688 of 2011 ALLOWING THE CRLRC