APHC010275892024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4456/2024 Between: 1. DURIYA RAGHAVA PRASAD, S/O APPA RAO, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O YENNELA VILLAGE AND POST, ARUKUVELLY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. SRI SIRIPURAPU APPA RAO, S/O LATE RAMU, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KORUKONDA VILLAGE AND POST, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records and quash the proceedings against the petitioner in connection with CC.No.2264 of 2022, on the file of the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MADHU SUDHAN P Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. Y V S S DHARANEESH 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the Proceedings against him in CC No.2264 of 2022 on the file of the court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Siva Nagarjuna Sidhadapu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2/State. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that despite discharge of the debt amount by the Petitioner/Accused, which is due to complainant/respondent No1, a false case has been lodged against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence, continuing criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the disputed issue of alleged discharge of the amount due to the complainant by the Petitioner/Accused is to be decided during trial. Learned counsel would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 3 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the court may pass appropriate orders. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by learned counsel for respondent No.1, the point raised in the present criminal petition is a matter of trial and without there being any defence put forth by the Petitioner before this Court, this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Petition No. 4456 2024 10.09.2025 Mjl /*