APHC010548112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10750/2025 Between: 1. LVK KISHORE KUMAR, S/O. MURALIKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HINDU, OCC ADVOCATE AND BUSINESS, R/O. D. NO. 16- 546, POTTISRIRAMULU STREET, (GADIVARI STREET), VENKATAGIRI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. AVULA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE GOPALAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. KARNAKAMMA STREET, VENKATAGIRI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VENKAT RAO RAVULAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been 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’) challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.69 of 2024 in C.C.No.70 of 2021 by the learned Special Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri, Tirupati District (for brevity, ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW.1 for further cross- examination was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Ms.K.Pallavi, learned counsel appearing for Sri Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner allegedly took a loan of Rs.37,00,000/- from Respondent No.1. Subsequently, the petitioner paid Rs.52,80,000/- to Respondent No.1. Inspite of this, Respondent No.1 deceitfully retained the promissory note and cheques and instituted three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, ‘the N.I Act’), not only against the petitioner but also against his wife and mother. A civil suit was also filed for recovery of Rs.37,00,000/-. Though PW.1 was cross-examined earlier, the petitioner seeks recall of PW.1 to put certain material questions relating to other cheques and the civil suit. It is urged that further cross-examination is necessary to elicit important aspects of 3 the dispute and she undertakes that no further recall of PW.1 will be sought until conclusion of trial. 4. Per contra, Mr.Revanth, learned counsel appearing for Mr.P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, submits that PW.1 was already cross-examined at length, and all relevant questions were put. The present petition is only a delaying tactic, filed nearly seven months after the initial cross-examination, in a case pending since 2021. The ‘learned Trial Court’ rightly dismissed the application with cogent reasons. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also reiterated the averments of the arguments of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.69 of 2024 in C.C.No.70 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri, Tirupati District is liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟/Section 528 of „the BNSS‟?” 8. As seen from the record, the application under Section 311 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ was filed nearly seven months after the initial cross-examination. Sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1. Certain material questions were posed and answered. The ‘learned Trial Court’ relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neha Begum v. 4 State of Assam1, wherein it was held that non-conducting of proper cross- examination by counsel engaged by the parties is not a ground for recalling witnesses. The ‘learned Trial Court’ dismissed the petition holding that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner for cross-examination of PW.1. PW.2 was also examined in chief and cross. 9. However, it is pertinent to mention that the learned Magistrate has deferred the examination of the petitioner under Section 313 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ on the ground that the present Criminal Petition is pending before this Court. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Respondent No.1, having received a substantial amount of nearly Rs.52,80,000/- towards the alleged loan of Rs.37,00,000/-, deceitfully retained the promissory notes and cheques and instituted three complaints not only against the petitioner but also against his wife and mother, which are pending before the same Court in C.C.Nos.71 and 74 of 2021. A Civil Suit was also instituted by Respondent No.1 before the learned District Court for recovery of Rs.37,00,000/- along with interest. The instant case pertains to a disputed cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-. 10. Considering the entire gamut of the litigation, it would have been appropriate for ‘the learned Trial Court’ to provide one more adequate and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to further cross-examine PW-1. Undoubtedly, an application filed merely for the purpose of further cross- examination to elicit certain facts cannot ordinarily be entertained. However, the present case stands on a different footing, as two cases have been filed 1 SLP (Crl.) No.3910 of 2024, decided on 02.09.2024 5 by respondent No.1 against the wife and mother of the petitioner and a suit is also pending between the parties. For the effective adjudication of the case, the documents sought to be confronted are material and necessary to probabilise the version of the petitioner. If one more fair opportunity is granted to the petitioner, the ends of justice would be sub-served by permitting further cross-examination of PW-1. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.69 of 2024 in C.C.No.70 of 2021 by ‘the learned Trial Court’, is hereby set aside, subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.15,000/- to Respondent No.1. Further time is granted to the petitioner for further cross-examination of PW.1. The learned Magistrate shall fix a specific date for the cross-examination of PW.1 by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The costs shall be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 09.02.2026 PRA 6 109 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10750 of 2025 Date: 09.02.2026 PRA