APHC010616732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12097/2025 Between: 1. PALLAPU MASTAN, S/O. GURAVAIAH,AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, COOLI,R/O. CHALLAGIRAGALA VILLAGE,KONDAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.NOW R/O DOOR NO. 175, CBR COLONY, BERAMGUDA, HYDERABAD 502 032 TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. VALLEPU ALIAS PALLAPU SUJATHA, W/O. PALLAPU MASTAN, D/O. VALLEPU SRINIVASULU,AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. TAILORING WORK AND MAGGAM WORKS,R/O. CHILAKAPADU VILLAGE, PAMUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT BLDGS, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court Made the Following Order: The instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner herein, against the docket order dated 17.10.2025 in CFR No.6466 of 2025 in Crl.M.P.No.3853 of 2024 in M.C.No.26 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri. 2 2. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2/State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the husband, and the learned trial Judge passed an order in M.C. No. 26 of 2024, making the petitioner ex parte and granting interim maintenance to the wife. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner approached the Court by filing a petition to set aside the ex parte order within the prescribed time, but it was returned on the ground that there was a delay. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition to condone the delay, but that petition was also returned, stating that the petition to set aside the ex parte order had in fact been filed within the period of limitation. Learned counsel would further submit that, aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court seeking quashment of the said office endorsement. 4. Considering the submissions and on a cursory look at the office endorsement, it is evident that it is purely an administrative act, namely, an objection raised by the office, though bearing the signature of the learned trial Judge. At this premature stage, it is not appropriate to approach this Court by challenging such an office objection. The petitioner ought to have requested the office to place the matter before the Court so that the learned trial Judge could take a decision on the 3 judicial side regarding the subject matter. Instead, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present petition challenging the administrative endorsement, which is merely an office objection raised by the office of the Court. 5. In that view, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before the trial Court. Registry is directed to return the original papers under proper acknowledgment. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date : 21.11.2025 Note:- Issue CC today B/O ASR 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.12097 of 2025 Dt.21.11.2025 ASR