APHC010674302025 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: 13015/2025 Between: 1. DAPPILI RANGA REDDY, S/O CHINNA RANGA REDDY, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 511, 5TH FLOOR, DRR PLAZA, GIDDALURTOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI. 2. MANDAVA MARUTHI PRASAD, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 302, MANDAVA RESIDENCY, RAMANAIAH NAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 APHC010674262025 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: 13016/2025 Between: 1. DAPPILI RANGA REDDY, S/O CHINNA RANGA REDDY, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 511, 5TH FLOOR, DRR PLAZA, GIDDALUR TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI. 2. MANDAVA MARUTHI PRASAD, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 302, MANDAVA RESIDENCY, RAMANAIAH NAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 APHC010674282025 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: 13035/2025 Between: 1. DAPPILI RANGA REDDY, S/O CHINNA RANGA REDDY, AGED 58 YEARS, RIO FLAT NO. 511, 5TH FLOOR, DRR PLAZA, GIDDALUR TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI. 2. MANDAVA MARUTHI PRASAD, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 302, MANDAVA RESIDENCY, RAMANAIAH NAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 13016, 13015 and 13035 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petition Nos.13016, 13015 and 13035 of 2025 have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS, seeking to quash the impugned orders, dated 19.11.2025 passed in Crl.MP.Nos.8213 of 2025, 8214 of 2025 and 8215 of 2025 respectively in C.C.No.1926 of 2019 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole. 2. Since all the three petitions arise out of same case, they are disposed of together by this common order. 3. The case of the petitioner is that a complaint was filed by one Mandava Maruthi Prasad against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that on 01.04.2016, the petitioner, for the purpose of his business, borrowed an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- from the complainant and executed a promissory note on the same day at Ongole, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 36% per annum on demand. The said promissory note was witnessed by Rayapati Koteswara Rao and Abburi Hari Babu, and scribed by Pakanati Nagi Reddy. 4. Subsequently, on repeated demands, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 06.02.2019 drawn on SBI, Giddalur Branch, for Rs.10,00,000/- towards partial discharge of the said debt. When the cheque was presented for collection on 06.02.2019 through Andhra Bank, Ongole Main Branch, it was 5 returned unpaid due to “insufficient funds” vide cheque return memo dated 08.02.2019. Thereafter, on 23.02.2019, the complainant issued a statutory legal notice, which was received by the accused on 27.02.2019. Since the accused failed to pay the cheque amount and sent a reply dated 06.03.2019 denying liability, the complainant filed the present complaint. 5. In the said case, the accused filed a written statement denying the allegations and contending that he never borrowed any amount from the complainant on 01.04.2016. It is specifically pleaded that, with the help of his friend D. Kishore Kumar, the accused borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- each from the complainant and his brother, M. Ranga Rao, in December 2018, for which blank promissory notes and blank cheques were issued. It is further stated that the said amounts were repaid in the presence of N.V. Sesha Sathya Narayana and D. Kishore Kumar, and that the complainant and his brother assured return of the cheques and promissory notes, but instead filed false complaints. 6. It is further pleaded that on 01.04.2016, the accused and D. Kishore Kumar travelled from Hyderabad to Singapore, and certified copies of the passport were filed in the connected civil suit. 7. When the case was posted for arguments on behalf of the accused, the accused filed petitions seeking to reopen the case, recall DW1, and summon the Immigration Authorities and Airport Authorities of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, Hyderabad, to produce records pertaining 6 to Ex.D1 passport. The said petitions were dismissed by the trial Court, which is assailed in the present Criminal Petitions. 8. Despite service of notice, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.1926 of 2019 and that the applications were filed to substantiate the defence that the alleged transaction did not take place on 01.04.2016. 10. Admittedly, the applications were filed at the stage of arguments. It is the specific defence of the accused that he was not present at Ongole on 01.04.2016 and that he travelled to Singapore on the said date. In his evidence as DW1, the accused stated that he boarded the flight at Hyderabad after 10:00 p.m., whereas the complainant alleges that the transaction under Ex.P1 took place between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. at Ongole on the same day. 11. When the accused disputes the very occurrence of the transaction at the relevant point of time, the opportunity sought by him to substantiate his defence cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground of delay and failed to furnish any material. 12. In the light of the facts and circumstances, these Criminal Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders, dated 19.11.2025 passed in Crl.MP.Nos.8213 of 2025, 8214 of 2025 and 8215 of 2025 respectively in C.C.No.1926 of 2019 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Ongole and the learned Magistrate is directed to 7 summon the authorities for cause production of record as prayed for by the petitioner in the aforesaid petitions. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 06.01.2026 ARB 8 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 409 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13015/2025, 13016/2025 and 13035 of 2025 Date: 06.01.2026 ARB