IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3196 OF 202fi Between: 1. M. Nageshwara Rao, M/S Chamudi Constructions, Rep by its Managing partner R/0 Plot No. 101, Sri Sai Apartments, Road No. 5, Street No.9, Nehru Nagar, West Marredpalli, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Amaravathi. 2. C.H.Nagireddy, S/o C.H.Seshi Reddy, Hindu .aged 58 years,occ business, R/o D.No 288-6,Near R and B Guest house, Kurnool District. Banagana Palle, ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the of Criminal Petition, 12.12.2024 on the file of Banaganapalle, Kurnool, Kurnool circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds the High Court may be pleased to quash the order dated passed in CrI.M.P.No. 950 of 2024 in C.C.No. 169/2017 Judicial First Class Magistrate for District. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the cir^jumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 169/2017 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate for Banaganapalle, Kurnpol, Kurnool District, pending disposal of the petition, This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Marella Radha Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent The Court made the following Order: 1 CrI.P. No.3196 of 2025 APHC010148982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO:3196/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED M. Nageshwara Rao AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 I CrI.P. No.3196of2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.3196 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is challenging the docket order, dated 12.12.2024, passed in C.C. No. 169 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banaganapalle, Kurnool District. The petitioner i- facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.950 of 2024 for recall of P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination and also sought 30 days time for examining the complainant. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition for recall of P.W.1, however rejected the 30 days time for cross- examination. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal petition is filed. IS cross- 3. Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. The short point for consideration is, whether the order rejecting 30 days time for cross-examination of P.W.1 can be interfered with. 5. As seen from the docket proceedings, dated 12.12.2024, the petitioner failed to cross-examine P.W.1. 18.10.2024 Vide docket proceedings dated the petitioner was called absent and the matter was adjourned to 24.10.2024 for cross-examination of P.W.1 on payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the Mandal Legal Services Authority. On 3 CrI.P. No.3196 of 2025 24.10.2024, the complainant was present. The petitioner was called absent. Cross examination of P.W.1 was treated as ‘nil and closed. The matter was posted to 25.10.2024 for examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short ‘Cr.P.C.’]. On 25.10.2024 a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the counsel for the petitioner, which was posted to 07.11.2024. Though the petition was allowed and the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of cross-examination on 12.12.2024 on the pretext that the petitioner would challenge the order rejecting the grant of 30 days for cross- examination of P.W.1. 6. The docket order, dated 12.12.2024, is challenged after lapse of three months. Be that as it may, the calendar case is filed in the year 2017 and has remained undisposed for the last eight years. The petitioner is evidently tijytng'tp ctelay the due process of law without complying with the legal obligation of completing trial within the reasonable period of time. On these grounds, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned docket order in C.C. No.169 of 2017. 7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criming petition shall stand closed. I Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate for Banaganapalle, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to Smt Marella Radha, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies RAM t HIGH COURT DATED :26/03/2025 ORDER AND/y^ CRLP.No.3196 of 2025 o o I T iUt 2025 o .■5- . Current Secnon DISMISSING THE CRLP ivLrv'jLVi