APHC010001032023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 24/2023 Between: 1. VOLETI VENKATA SATYA PRASAD, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, IDEAL, RESIDING IN THE HOUSE IN DOOR NO.21-8-21, DOODPEERU PANJA STREET, CHOWTRA DOWN, GUNTUR, KOTHAPETA, ANDHRA PRADESH-522 001. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. LEELA KANIKI REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY,HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF THE HOUSE IN DOOR NO.5-204, VENKATESWARA NAGAR, N.G.O. COLONY, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.,BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BALA DASTAGIRI P Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. MARELLA RADHA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court Made the Following Order: The instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.103 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, for the offence under Section 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. and read with Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. Heard Sri Bala Dastagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2/State and Ms.M.Radha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they did not receive the statutory notice in this matter before the complainant lodged a private complaint. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 vehemently opposed the said contention and would submit that the complaint itself shows that the notice was duly served to the accused. Learned counsel would further submit that this is a mixed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated while exercising inherent jurisdiction. Hence, this is not a fit case for quashment, as the matter requires investigation and a full-length trial. 5. Considering the submissions made, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, the complaint shows that the notice was sent to the accused. The question of service of notice on the accused is a mixed question of fact and law, and this Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, cannot adjudicate such a factual dispute. 6. In that view, the petition lacks merit and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all such contentions before the trial Court, the learned Judge may appreciate them and take appropriate decision over the matter. The learned Trial Judge is directed to proceed with the matter and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible without granting any adjournment in casual way by mere asking. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date : 05.11.2025 ASR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.24 of 2023 Dt.05.11.2025 ASR