APHC010000542026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 43/2026 Between: 1. NAVODAYA CONTRACTORS, REGISTERED FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,NAMELY MUSALREDDYGARI REATESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARSDOOR NO. 11-86/1-A, K.C.ROAD,CHAGALAMARRI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. MUSALREDDYGARI REATESH REDDY, S/O OF RAMASURESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.MANAGING PARTNER OF NAVODAYA CONTRACTORS,DOOR NO. 29-178-30, SBI COLONY,NANDYALA TOWN AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 3. M SUBHASHINI, W/O. RAMASURESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.PARTNER OF NAVODAYA CONTRACTORS,DOOR NO.29- 178-30, SBI COLONY,NANDYALA TOWN AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, 4. PEDDIREDDY SOUNDARYA, W/O. MUSALREDDYGARI REATESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.PARTNER OF NAVODAYA CONTRACTORS,DOOR NO.29-178-30, SBI COLONY,NANDYALA TOWN AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. MUSALREDDYGARI DINESH RAMI REDDY, S/O OF RAMA SURESH REDDY, AGED ABUT 31 YEARS.PARTNER OF NAVODAYA CONTRACTORS,DOOR NO.29-178-30, SBI COLONY,NANDALA TOWN AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. BHUMIREDDY BALACHENNA REDDY, S/O OF CHENNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU,R/O. DOOR NO.3/71, PRAKASH NAGAR, LINGAREDDY STREETPRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ...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 Courtmay be pleased to set aside the order dated 27.11.2025 passed in CrI.M.P No. 4122 of 2025 in C.C No. 760 of 2021 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Proddatur, and consequently dismiss CrI.M.P No. 4122 of 2025 in C.C No. 760 of 2021 on the in file of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Proddatur; and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 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 may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the order dated 27.11.2025 passed in CrI.M.P No. 4122 of 2025 in C.C No. 760 of 2021 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Proddatur, pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition; and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 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 may be pleased may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings in CC No. 760 of 2021 on the file of the Hon’ble Court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Proddatur, pending disposal of the present Criminal Petition: and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 43/2026 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners/accused seeking to set aside the order dated 27.11.2025 passed in CrI.M.P No. 4122 of 2025 in C.C No. 760 of 2021 on the file of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Proddatur, and consequently dismiss CrI.M.P No. 4122 of 2025 in C.C No. 760 of 2021 on the in file of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Proddatur. 2. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. The petitioners herein are the accused, who assail the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 4122 of 2025 in C.C. No. 760 of 2021 on the file of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, whereby the application filed by the complainant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relevance of the documents produced at a belated stage was neither stated in the petition nor discussed by the learned Magistrate, and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that, since the case is a private complaint, the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioners are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant was examined as P.W.1, and Exs. P-1 to P-13 were marked. P.W.1 was cross-examined by the defence in the year 2022. Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition seeking permission to receive additional documents and to recall P.W.1 after a lapse of three years. But the fact remains that, the accused have not yet adduced their evidence in the case. The learned trial Judge, exercising his discretion, permitted the complainant to place the additional documents on record, in addition to Exs. P-1 to P-13. 6. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any warrant to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge. However, considering that the case pertains to the year 2021, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, without granting adjournments in a casual manner or on mere asking. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stands closed. Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 06.01.2026 KKV