APHC010850922018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3239] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12092/2018 Between: Kanneganti Sambasiva Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND M/s Kamadheou Financiers and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. HEMANTH KUMAR VEMURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA 2 APHC010851852018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3239] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12111/2018 Between: Kanneganti Sambasiva Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND M/s Kamadhenu Financiers and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. HEMANTH KUMAR VEMURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 12092 and 12111 of 2018 The Court made the following Common Order: As both the Criminal Petitions arise out of the same Criminal Appeal i.e., Crl.A.No.24 of 2003 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Vijayawada, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Crl.P.No.12092 of 2018 was filed questioning the Order dated 01.10.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.1339 of 2004 in Crl.A.No.24 of 2003 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Vijayawada and Crl.P.No.12111 of 2018 was filed questioning the Order dated 04.10.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.1845 of 2014 in Crl.A.No.24 of 2003 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Vijayawada. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- i) M/s.Kamadhenu Financers a Partnership Firm filed a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said Compliant was numbered as CC No.304 of 2000 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. After elaborate trial, the 4 said Calendar Case ended in conviction vide Judgment dated 13.02.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. During pendency of the said Criminal Appeal, the petitioner/appellant/ accused filed application vide Crl.M.P.No.1339 of 2004 for compounding the offence. During pendency of the said Crl.M.P., an objection petition was filed on behalf of the victim contending that earlier one B.Sridevi, was the Managing Partner and the previous partner was expelled from the Firm. Inspite of the said objections, learned Appellate Judge allowed the compounding application by Order dated 02.12.2004 and acquitted the petitioner by compounding the offences. Aggrieved by the same, M/s.Kamadhenu Financers represented by the Managing Partner represented by B.Sridevi filed Crl.R.C.No.909 of 2005 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. After hearing both sides, the said Criminal Revision Case was disposed of on 06.12.2012. The operative portion of the Order reads as under: “In that view of the matter, the order impugned is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court to adjudicate the issue with regard to the competency 5 of PW1-K.V.Appa Rao to compound the offence and to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to adduce additional evidence, if any before the lower appellate Court.” ii) After remanding the matter, learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge passed the Order which is impugned in the present Criminal Petition No.12092 of 2018. The operative portion of the lower appellate Court reads as follows: “If K.V.Apparao is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Registrar of Firms, he could have taken up some proceedings challenging the said orders and to set aside the orders passed by the Registrar of Firms which passed an order with a retrospective effect. Even though the order was passed in the year 2014, the Registrar of Firms observed that K.V.Apparao ceased to be the partner of the complainant firm with effect from 23.01.2003. Whether the Registrar is competent to remove a particular partner of a firm with retrospective effect or not is a question which is to be agitated by K.V.Apparao. But as on today the order passed by the Registrar of Firms is not set aside and as a matter of fact, the Registrar of Firms acted as per the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions and in view of the fact that the competent authority like Registrar 6 of Firms declared that K.V.Apparao is not a partner of the firm as on the date of entering into compromise. I am to hold that K.V.Apparao is not competent to represent the complainant firm, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of recording compromise as prayed for.” 4. After elaborately arguing Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Hemanth Kumar Vemuri, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that instead of deciding the competency of Sri K.V.Apparao, he will proceed with the arguments in the main Appeal and as such, no orders need to be passed in the present Criminal Petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the firm has no objection to proceed with the Appeal. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances and as the learned counsel for the petitioner intends to proceed with the main Appeal itself, no orders need to be passed in the Criminal Petitions. 7. The petitioner/appellant/accused is permitted to participate in the Appeal and proceed with arguments, in accordance with the law. Both the parties are also permitted to adduce any further evidence, in accordance with the law, if they desire to do so. 7 8. The Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge is directed to take up the Appeal and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 9. With the above observations, both the Criminal Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY Dated: 28.11.2025 PSA 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 12092 and 12111 of 2018 Date: 28.11.2025 PSA