APHC010557902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO:10875 of 2025 Between: 1. LANKAPALLI RAJESWARI, WIFE OF MALLESWARA RAO, FEMALE, AGED 35 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 11-131, SANIVARAPUPETA PANCHAYATH ELURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, A.P. 2. ABBISETTI SUBBA RAO, , SON OF SATYA NARAYANA, AGED 39 YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF MADEPALLI VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BADDI MANIKANTA N S V AVINASH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: The instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, against the order dated 10.10.2025 in Crl.MP.No.574 2 of 2025 in C.C.No.191 of 2015 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Eluru. 2. Heard Sri Baddi Manikanta NSV Avinash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the accused facing trial in C.C.No.191 of 2015, which is a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that when the matter is at the stage of arguments, the petitioner herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.574 of 2025 to recall the PWs.1 and 2 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that because of change of the counsel, the said petition is filed to cross-examine of PWs.1 and 2 by putting some important questions. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that a fair opportunity may be given to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine PWs.1 and 2 by imposing any conditions. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made and fair look at the material placed on record, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is a well- reasoned order. The order itself would show that PWs.1 and 2 were cross- 3 examined at length by learned counsel for the accused even in the year 2018. The order further shows that PW1 cross-examined two or three times in different spells. The Calendar Case is of the year 2015, at this length of time, the petitioner/accused filed a petition to recall the PWs.1 and 2 without any specific reason. In that view, the learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the petition. Therefore, there are no circumstances to exercise its jurisdiction by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 23.10.2025 KNN 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10875 of 2025 Dt.23.10.2025 KNN