APHC010614882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA IA NO.1 of 2025 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1281/2025 Between: 1. PONUGUMATI DEVAMANI, W/O.PRASAD, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARSHOUSE WIFE, D.NO.4-59/1,BODDAPADU VILLAGE, NEAR NUNNA,VIJAYAWADA RURAL, NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI 2. KOTA SRINIVASA RAO, S/o.PULLAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.BUSINESS, R/O D. No.71-2-20, 1ST FLOOR,VARJANEYA VILLA, NSM SCHOOL ROAD,FATAMATA-VIJAYAWADA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Revision case by setting aside the Judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.184/2023 on the file of Hon9ble XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge At Vijayawada by dismissing the Appeal for no representation and Batta not paid, the Judgment Dated. 13.05.2025 passed in C.C.No.457 / 2020 on the file of V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ETUKURI MADHU MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. ANJANEYULU TIRUMALASETTY 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiyana Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 8BNSS.9), has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.184 of 2023 on the file of the Court of XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, which was dismissed for default. The respondent No.2 herein is the Complainant, who filed a complaint against the petitioner/Accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the Petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her on 24.02.2018. The cheque given by the Petitioner/Accused was returned from the concerned Bank with an endorsement of 8Funds Insufficient9. After following procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant filed the complaint against the Petitioner/Accused which is subject matter in CC No.457 of 2020 on the file of the Court of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The learned Magistrate after adducing evidence on both sides and hearing the parties, by Judgment dated 20.07.2023 found the Petitioner/Accused guilty for the offence under Sections 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted her under Sedtion 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.6,00,000/- in default, shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The fine amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is directed to be paid to the complainant/respondent No.2 towards compensation. Questioning the same, 3 the petitioner/Accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.184 of 2023 on the file of the Court of XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, wherein, the learned Sessions Judge by Judgment dated 13.05.2025 dismissed the appeal for default on the ground the appellant /Accused called absent and no representation on her behalf and no batta is paid. Questioning the same, the petitioner/Accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case with a delay of 94 days in preferring the Criminal Revision Case. IA No.1 of 2025 is filed to condone the said delay. Today, the parties appeared before this Court represented by their respective learned counsels on record. Sri Etukuri Madhu Murthy, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that in view to compromise arrived at between the parties, the Criminal Revision Case may be allowed and the case against the Petitioner may be closed. Sri Tirumalasetty Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 did not oppose the said submission. Smt.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. Considering the submissions, in the interests of justice, the delay of 94 days in filing the criminal revision case is condoned and accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgments of the Courts below dated 13.05.2025 in Crl.A.No.184 of 2023 on the file of the Court of XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and dated 20.07.2023 passed in CC No.457 of 2020 on the file of the Court of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada subject to condition of the Petitioner/ Accused paying costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to 4 the High Court Advocates9 Association, Amaravati. The President, High Court Advocates9 Association is directed to spend the said amount to meet the necessities of the children in the crush. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 10.03.2026 Mjl/* 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 1281 of 2025 10.03.2026 Mjl/*