APHC010053442023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 870/2023 Between: 1. MULA VINODH KUMAR, S/O.JAGANMOHANA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YRS, R/O. D.NO.37-6-75/1/3, FLAT NO.404, SRI VAMSHI ENCLAVE, MURAL NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 07. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. PADAVALA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.LATE SAMBA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 61 YRS, R/O.D.NO.2-188, CHUNDURI VARI STREET, VISSAKODERU POST, WEST GODAVARI CAMP AT VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to call for records in connection with the case in C.C.No. 5014 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of The V Spl Magistrate At Visakhapatnam, which was taken on file for the alleged offence under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and quash the same against the petitioner as it is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and abuse of process of law and further the averments do not attract the ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (“For Short „Cr.P.C.”) for the following relief: “ ... to call for records in connection with the case in C.C.No.5014 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of V Spl Magistrate At Visakhapatnam, which was taken on file for the alleged offence under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and quash the same against the petitioner as it is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and abuse of process of law and further the averments do not attract the ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner and to pass ....” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent/State. Despite service of notice through Court, none represented for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has purchased property from respondent No.1-Complainant vide registered sale deed dated 31.08.2018 wherein, the date of the cheque was mentioned as 30.07.2018 and thereafter, the cheque date was manipulated as 30.07.2019. A false Private Complaint has been lodged against the Petitioner which is not tenable either in law on facts. The allegation that the Petitioner has issued the disputed cheque dated 30.07.2019 after completion of the sale transaction on 31.08.2018 is far away to truth and is unbelievable. Learned counsel would submit that the cheque number and date is clearly mentioned in the registered sale deed and then the question of manipulation does not arise at all. Learned counsel would 3 submit that continuing criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is sheer abuse of process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material on record, the question raised before this Court regarding manipulation of the cheque date as „30.07.2019‟ instead of „30.07.2018‟ which is mentioned in the registered sale deed transaction between Petitioner and respondent No.1 is the factual aspect of the matter. On this aspect, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial to find out the truth or otherwise of the matter by invoking the provisions under Section 482 of the Code. This matter requires investigation at length for which full fledged trial should go on. It is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the Trial Court at the time of trial and the Learned Trial Judge may take appropriate decision over the matter according to law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Petition No. 870 of 2023 04.08.2025 Mjl /*