IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV. ,4 4 m'i Si! TUESDAY. THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5005 OF 2025 Between: Bollam Lingatata, S/o. Brahmendra Rao, Aged about 63 year, Male, Occ: Employee, R/o. D.No. 12-36/3, Akividu Village Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravathi. 1 Respondent 2. Vakacharla Srinivasulu, S/o. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Aged about 57 years, Male, Occ: Business, R/o. 0pp. BSNL Office Jangareddigudem, Town Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Respondent/2"'' Respondent Petition under 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 quash the order dt. 13.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.237 of 2025 in C.C No.866 of 2018 on the file of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class (Junior Division) Jangareddigudem and consequently allow Crl.M.P,No.237 of 2025 in C.C No.866 of 2018 on the file of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of 1 Division) Jangareddigudem. St Class (Junior I.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings in C.C No. 866 of 2025 on the file of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class (Junior Division) Jangareddigudem, pending disposal of the main Criminal petition. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pathuri Srinivas, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: 1 CRLP. No.5005 of 2025 0^ APHC010217332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5005/2025 Between: Bollam Lingatata ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.PATHURI SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: CRLP. No.5005 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.5005 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2025 in CrI.M.P. No.237 of 2025 in C.C. No.866 of 2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Junior Division), Jangareddigudem. 3. The petitioner is arraigned as accused in C.C. No.866 of 2018 for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments 1881. Assistant Act, 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the listed for the recording of defence evidence. 5. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned petitioner and perusing the record, it is observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner had extensively cross-examined P.W.1 on 12.09.2024. Subsequently, on 24.10.2024, the petitioner engaged a new counsel, and thereafter, on 28.12.2024, a petition for the recall of P.W.1 was filed. The learned Magistrate has further observed that the case pertains to the year 2018 and that ample opportunities afforded to the petitioner for the cross-examination of P.W.1. After matter is now counsel for the % were several adjournments, P.W.1 was duly cross-examined on 12.09.2024. The petition seeking the recall of P.W.1 has also been thoroughly 3 CRLP. No.5005 of 2025 examined. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that thereSi^^^ are material discrepancies and contradictions in the complaint, the chief-examination, the dates mentioned therein, and the presentation of the cheque, among other aspects. A further opportunity for examination has been sought on these grounds. The learned Magistrate, after due consideration of the petition and the counter filed by the respondent, has passed a reasoned order, declining the request for the recall of P.W.1. 6. This Court finds no substantial grounds to interfere with the reasoned order of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. V cross well- Sd/- A. VENUGOPALA RAO assistant REG SECTION OFFICER 2. One CC to Jangareddygudem. Pathuri Srinivas Advocate [OPUCJ 4.' rr CD coplr (OUT, RAR //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Judicial PNM RAM J HIGH COURT DATED:06/05/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5005 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRLP