APHC010504652026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1121/2026 Between: GUNTURI KIRAN KUMARI, W/O RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS SCHOOL ASSISTANT,R/O SSPM ZPH GIRLS, PENUGANCHIPROLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL,NTR 521190 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AT AMARAVATI. 522239 2. JAVVAJI PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,R/O NEHRU NAGAR, NANDIGAMA TOWN AND MANDAL,NTR DISTRICT. AP. 521185 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: MADUGULA AKHIL Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1121 of 2026 Dated 24.09.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.953 of 2026 in C.C.No.236 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Issuance of notice to Respondent No.2 is not required, inasmuch as the impugned order relates to deposit of 15% of the cheque amount within a stipulated time. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing financial difficulties and, therefore, is not in a position to comply with the order of the learned Trial Court directing the petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount. 5. In this regard, it is apposite to refer judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand1, wherein at Paragraph Nos.21 to 24, it is held that while exercising discretion under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the N.I.Act’), the Court must prima facie assess the merits of the complainant’s 1 (2024) 4 SCC 419 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1121 of 2026 Dated 24.09.2026 case and the defence of the accused, and the presumption under Section 139, by itself, is insufficient to warrant interim compensation. The Court must also consider the quantum having regard to the nature of transaction, relationship between the parties, paying capacity and financial distress of the accused, and the plausibility of the defence. The factors are not exhaustive, and the Court is required to record brief reasons demonstrating consideration of all relevant circumstances, including pendency of any civil proceedings. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 15.07.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.953 of 2026 in C.C.No.236 of 2021 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, is slightly modified. The petitioner is permitted to deposit 10% of the cheque amount within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. On such deposit, Respondent No.2 is at liberty to withdraw the same upon furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.09.2026 RSI 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1121 of 2026 Dated 24.09.2026 153 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1121 of 2026 Date: 24.09.2026 RSI