Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010182802019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 678/2019 Between: 1. B.SATYANARAYANA, S/O. LATE KRISHNA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. RAMAKRISHNAPURAM, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. MEKALA VENKATA SURI SUBBA RAO, S/O. SIVARAMAYYA, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. KOMATITIPPA VILLAGE, DEYYALA TIPPA POST, VIA DIRSUMARRU, MOGALTUR MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.678 of 2019 Dated 07.07.2026 1. SURESH BABU CHAPALA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the order of the dismissal of the case in S.R.No.2600 of 2018 dated 27.02.2019. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2. Sri Siva Sankara Rao Borra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds urged in the revision, submits that the order dismissing the complaint is unsustainable in law. It is further contended that the Petitioner would suffer irreparable injury and hardship if the impugned order is not set aside. Therefore, it is prayed that the Criminal Revision Case be allowed. 3. Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Sri Ch. Suresh, learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2, submit that ample opportunities were afforded to the complainant to prosecute the complaint. However, the complainant failed to avail himself of those opportunities and 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.678 of 2019 Dated 07.07.2026 exhibited a negligent attitude in prosecuting the case. Consequently, the learned Trial Court was constrained to dismiss the complaint under Section 256 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. 4. On a careful perusal of the order dated 27.02.2019, it is evident that the complainant/Petitioner was absent and remained unrepresented. Despite several opportunities granted by the learned Trial Court, the complainant neither appeared nor ensured representation. The learned Trial Court observed that the complainant had shown no interest in prosecuting the matter and, therefore, dismissed the complaint under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. The complaint was instituted in the year 2018 alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 138 to 142 of ‘the N.I.Act’. The reference to Section 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ pertains to the procedural provision under which the complaint was presented. According to the Petitioner, the cheque amount involved is Rs.12,00,000/-. The docket proceedings of the learned Trial Court clearly indicate that the Petitioner lacked due diligence and genuine interest in prosecuting the complaint. Even if the impugned order were to be set aside and one more opportunity were granted, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner would 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.678 of 2019 Dated 07.07.2026 diligently prosecute the complaint. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the revision. 6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 07.07.2026 KMS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.678 of 2019 Dated 07.07.2026 162 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 678/2019 Date: 07.07.2026 KMS