APHC010412132022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 6245, 6246 and 6247 of 2022 Between: Reyyala Bhumija ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Andhra Pradrsh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6246/2022 Between: Reyyala Bhumija ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6247/2022 Between: Reyyala Bhumija ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. G V S MEHAR KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These three Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the parties in all the three cases are one and the same. 2. The Criminal Petitions three in number were filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “the Cr.P.C.”) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNSS”), seeking to quash the orders passed against the prosecution or the petitioner in Crl.M.P.Nos.2513, 2514 and 2515 of 2018 arising in C.C. No.653 of 2018 arising in Crime No.249 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “the I.P.C.”). 3. Crl.M.P.No.2513 of 2021 was filed by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court for issue summons 1) to the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Alamuru Branch to produce original cheque vide No.AB/SB/CTC/2015/DL, dated 19.05.2018, (2) to the Branch manager, H.D.F.C, Srinagar Branch, Kakinada to produce certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act relating to the date furnished by them to P.W.2 pertaining to the account of P.W.2, (3) to the Branch Manager, SBI, Timmapuram Branch to set aside the ex-parte order dated 05.09.2019. 3 4. Crl.M.P.No.2514 of 2021 was filed by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court for issue summons to the Branch Managers of Union Bank of India, Alamuru Branch, HDFC Bank, Srinagar Branch, Kakinada and SBI, Thimmapuram branch as additional witnesses and permit the prosecution to examine then on behalf of the prosecution in the interest of the justice. 5. Crl.M.P.No.2515 of 2021 was filed by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court to reopen the evidence of P.W.2 and recall P.W.2 and permit him to give evidence as to the Ex.P4 to Ex.P8 which were marked through P.W.1 for further chief examination i.e., for the purpose of elicit the connected facts in the interest of justice. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 7. Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the deletion of Accused Nos. 3 and 4, despite specific overt acts attributed to them in the complaint and statements recorded under Section 161 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ is arbitrary and unsustainable. He further submits that the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 319 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ though supported by ample material on record, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner was compelled to approach the Director of Prosecutions due to failure of the regular Assistant Public Prosecutor to place vital material evidence before the trial court. He further submits that the petitions filed under Sections 91 and 311 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ were bona-fide attempts to secure necessary documentary and oral evidence essential for a 4 just adjudication of the case. The learned Trial Court granted repeated adjournments to the accused for cross-examination, while the prosecution witnesses attended diligently on every date of hearing. The imposition of costs upon the petitioner, without imposing similar costs upon the accused despite their repeated delays, demonstrates unequal treatment. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dismissal of the petitions without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the prosecution is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The finding that the cheque number was not mentioned is contrary to the record, as the relevant details are clearly reflected in Exs.P-4 to P-10 already marked before the court. The alleged non-production of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a curable procedural defect and could not have been a valid ground for dismissal of the petitions. Non-examination of the summoned bank officials and non-consideration of material evidence would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and result in miscarriage of justice. 9. Per contra, A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the case has been pending for more than eight years, and for one reason or another, the petitioner has delayed the trial, preventing the prosecution from concluding the evidence. He urged the court to pass orders in accordance with law. 10. Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that the petitioner has been harassing the respondents by filing false, frivolous, and vexatious petitions. The 2nd respondent is the husband of the 5 petitioner, and the 3rd respondent is the father-in-law of the petitioner and the father of the 2nd respondent, aged about 68 years. The petitioner lodged a complaint which was registered as Crime No. 249 of 2018 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with 34 of „the I.P.C.,‟ on 22.09.2018. The petitioner made allegations against the earlier Assistant Public Prosecutor before the learned Trial Court to the Director of Prosecutions, following which another Assistant Public Prosecutor was appointed to conduct the prosecution. It is eventually submitted to dismiss the criminal petitions. 11. The petitioner in these three Criminal Petitions is the de-facto complainant/victim in C.C. No.653 of 2018 on the file of the learned Trial Court. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the accused. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.1213 of 2021 before the learned Trial Court under Section 91 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ seeking summons to the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, Alamuru, to produce the original cheque dated 19.05.2018; to the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank, Srinagar, to produce a certificate under Section 65-B of „the Act.,‟ relating to data furnished to P.W.2; and to the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Thimmapuram, to set aside the ex-parte order dated 05.09.2019. The learned Trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition on the ground that it did not contain specific reasons and was filed merely to delay the proceedings. The petitioner, as de-facto complainant/victim, was examined as P.W.1 and had marked several documents. She was afforded ample opportunities to examine witnesses, and 6 some additional witnesses were also examined on her behalf. The case originates from the year 2018, and even after more than eight years, it has not reached its logical conclusion. 12. Crl.M.P. No.2514 was filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ before the learned Trial Court to issue summons to the Branch Managers of Union Bank of India, Alamuru Branch, HDFC Bank, Srinagar Branch, Kakinada, and State Bank of India, Thimmapuram, as additional witnesses, and to permit their examination by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that, on an earlier occasion, a petition under Sections 311 and 242(2) of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ had been allowed vide order dated 10.12.2021, and Exs.P4 to P10 had already been marked through P.W.1. Subsequently, when the case had returned to the stage of cross- examination of P.W.1, on 29.12.2021, the prosecution filed another petition under Sections 311 and 91 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ seeking to recall P.W.1 and summon the bank officials. The learned Trial Court observed that the prosecution, in an attempt to fill alleged lacunae, had filed successive petitions, which are intended to protract the proceedings. 13. Another petition, Crl.M.P.No.2515, was filed at the instance of the petitioner under Section 311 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ seeking to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 and recall P.W.2 to give evidence on Exs.P4 to P8, which had already been marked through P.W.1. P.W.2 had already been examined, both in chief and in cross-examination. The petition was filed at a belated stage, and the learned Trial Court, for cogent reasons, dismissed the petition. 7 14. There is no justification for filing the three petitions before the learned Trial Court. Sufficient opportunities were provided to the prosecution to prove its case. The prosecution cannot be allowed to file repeated petitions for one reason or another and one after another. The case dates back to the year 2018 and ought to have been disposed of much early before. The criminal petitions filed by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court lack merit. The impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity, and there has been no miscarriage of justice. Hence, the criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed. 15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 requests to direct the court below to dispose of the case as early as possible. 16. Indeed, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak1, at paragraph No.86 (10) held as under: “(10) It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time-limit for trial of offences. Any such rule is bound to be qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to shift the burden of proving justification on to the shoulders of the prosecution. In every case of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the duty of the court to weigh all the circumstances of a given case before pronouncing upon the complaint. The Supreme Court of USA too has repeatedly refused to fix any such outer time-limitin spite of the Sixth Amendment. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer limit ineffectuates the guarantee of right to speedy trial.” 17. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P2 at paragraph No.32 held as under: “32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of 1 (1992) 1 SCC 225 2 AIR Online 2024 SC 143 8 cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.” 18. It is observed that the practice of giving directions to the learned Trial Courts fixing the schedule for disposal of the cases were deprecated by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad supra. However, the right to speedy disposal is one of the facets of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, it is made clear that the learned Magistrate is at liberty to take any decision in accordance with proviso of Section 143 of „the N.I.Act‟ during the trial proceedings to convert the case from summary trial to summons case by recording appropriate reasons. 19. In the result, the criminal petitions are dismissed. The learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the calendar cases at the earliest, as they are obviously among the oldest pending cases, and to submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial). As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.02.2026 KMS 9 284 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6245, 6246 and 6247 of 2022 Date: 23.02.2026 KMS