APHC010057032026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 886 and 887 of 2026 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 886 of 2026 Between: 1. YARRAGUNTLA ADI LAKSHMI, W/O. SATYA VARAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE R/O. D. NO. 19/42/7 (OLD), 39-458/A (NEW). OLD BYEPASS ROAD, NEAR POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE ROAD AND SARVAJANA PRADHANA MANDIRAM NANDIGAMA TOWN AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. KAVURI GOPALA KRISHNA, S/O PRASAD, HINDU, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O CHANDAPURAM VILLAGE, NANDIGAMA MANDAL. KRISHNA DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 887/2026 Between: 1. YARRAGUNTIA ADI LAKSHMI,, W/O. SATYA VARAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D. NO. 19/42/7 (OLD), 39- 458/A (NEW), OLD BYEPASS ROAD, NEAR POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE ROAD AND SARVAJANA PRADHANA MANDIRAM, 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.886 and 887 of 2026 Dated 16.04.2026 NANDIGAMA TOWN AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. KAVURI GOPALA KRISHNA, S/O PRASAD, HINDU, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O CHANDAPURAM VILLAGE, NANDIGAMA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. T B L MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. VELADI SAI SRI HARSHA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same calendar case. 2. The two Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNSS”) by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against her in Crl.M.P.Nos.2141 and 2142 of 2024 in C.C.No.613 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandigama. 3. Crl.M.P.No.2141 of 2024 was filed seeking to reopen the evidence of P.W.1, and Crl.M.P.No.2142 of 2024 was filed for recall of P.W.1 for further 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.886 and 887 of 2026 Dated 16.04.2026 cross-examination. The learned Trial Court dismissed both applications on the grounds that the case was posted for evidence of the accused; the calendar case pertains to the year 2019; the matter has been posted for defence evidence since 07.12.2023; nearly two years have elapsed; and the Petitioner/Accused ought to have examined herself or other witnesses to prove her case rather than seeking recall of P.W.1, who had already been examined. The Trial Court further observed that the petitions were filed only to protract the proceedings and cause further delay. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has traced certain documents, namely promissory notes, cheques, and notices, which are prior to the documents filed in the present case. It is contended that certain important aspects need to be elicited from P.W.1 based on these documents. 5. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submit that the two petitions were filed only to delay the proceedings by adopting dilatory tactics and that there is no justification for filing the same. It is further submit that no reasons, much less convincing reasons, have been assigned for filing the petitions, particularly when the case was posted for evidence of the Petitioner/Accused, and therefore they pray for dismissal of the petitions. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.886 and 887 of 2026 Dated 16.04.2026 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 8. 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 impugned orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.2141 and 2142 of 2024 in C.C.No.613/2019 dated 29.12.2025 against the Petitioner/Accused on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandigama are 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’?" 9. P.W.1 was examined and his evidence was completed on 25.07.2023. In the year 2024, the present two Criminal Petitions were filed seeking reopening of the evidence and recall of P.W.1 for further cross-examination. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has traced certain promissory notes, cheques, and notices, which are required to be confronted to P.W.1 to substantiate the case of the Petitioner. Therefore, recalling P.W.1 by reopening the evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. 10. There is no gainsaying that on an earlier occasion, the Petitioner had filed a similar application seeking recall of P.W.1 by reopening his evidence. However, if one more fair opportunity is afforded to the Petitioner to effectively cross-examine P.W.1 and to confront the said documents, the ends of justice would be met. At the same time, imposition of costs is found to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the Petitioner did not 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.886 and 887 of 2026 Dated 16.04.2026 choose to file the present petitions immediately after the closure of the evidence of P.W.1. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the cheque amount of Rs.5,30,000/-, this Court deems it appropriate to impose costs of Rs.20,000/- for allowing the two petitions, one for reopening the evidence and the other for recall of P.W.1. The said costs shall be paid by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 within one (01) week after receipt of this order. Thereafter, the further cross-examination of P.W.1 shall be completed by the learned Trial Court within one (01) week, and no further time shall be granted for the said purpose. 12. With the above observations and directions, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated 16.04.2026 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.886 and 887 of 2026 Dated 16.04.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 886 and 887/2026 16.04.2026 W 125