APHC010118572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 4553 & 11911/2025 CRIMINAL PETITION No: 4553/2025: Between: 1. MUNAVATH SRI USHA,, W/O. JAYARAM NAIK, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, FEMALE, R/O. D.NO.LIG-359. VODA COLONY PEDAGANTIYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT: 2. MUNAVATH JAYARAM NAIK, S/O. LATE M.LAXMIROY, ADVOCATE, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO.9-585, OPPOSITE TO POLICE STADIUM, VISALAKSHINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED(S): for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA 2 CRIMINAL PETITION No: 11911/2025: Between: 1. MUNAVATH SRI USHA,, W/O. JAYARAM NAIK, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, FEMALE, R/O. D.NO.LIG-359. VODA COLONY PEDAGANTIYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT: 2. MUNAVATH JAYARAM NAIK, S/O. LATE M.LAXMIROY, ADVOCATE, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT D.NO.9-585, OPPOSITE TO POLICE STADIUM, VISALAKSHINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 4553 & 11911/2025 COMMON ORDER: The instant Criminal Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) have been filed by the petitioner, seeking to quash the Orders dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gajuwaka in Crl.M.P.Nos.8008 and 8007 of 2024 in C.C.No.120 of 2020. 2. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gollamudi Nagasatyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Since the subject matter of these petitions is one and the same, at the request of the learned counsel on both sides, these petitions are heard together and the following common order is passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.120 of 2020 which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution has filed the Crl.M.P.Nos.8008 and 8007 of 2024 to receive and mark the documents therein by recalling the PW1 under Sections 242(2) and 311 of Cr.P.C., respectively. He would further 4 submit that the learned Trial Judge erred in dismissing the above petitions, since the documents which are proposed to be brought on record before the Trial Court are very crucial evidence for establishing the guilt of the accused therein. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the petitions and would submit that the Orders passed by the learned Trial Judge are well reasoned orders and does not require any interference of this Court. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded with the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 7. Considering the submissions and a keen perusal of the material placed on record, this Court does not fine any merit in the present petitions for quashment of the impugned Orders passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gajuwaka in Crl.M.P.Nos.8008 and 8007 of 2024 in C.C.No.120 of 2020 dated 10.01.2025. The impugned Order is a well reasoned Order. The learned Judge has not considered the request of the State to receive the documents and recall the PW1, since those documents are already marked and in fact, they are undisputed documents. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that let there be a direction to the learned Trial Judge for expeditious disposal of the matter. 5 9. In that view, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of. However, the learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and inform the progress of the case to the Registrar (Judicial) by 01.03.2026, since the crime is of the year 2014, though the C.C., appears to be of the year 2020. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 08.12.2025. UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 4553 & 11911/2025 Dated.08.12.2025 UPS 260