Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20888
APHC010318962022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5121/2022 Between:
Karumuri Balakoti Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND P Sekhar Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. K V VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA
ORDER :
The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the order in Crl.M.P.No.912 of 2018, dated 07.04.2022 in CFR No.2355 of 2017 on the file of the Court of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.
2. Heard Sri K.V.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Complainant filed a Private Complaint under Section 200 of the Code in CFR No.2355 of 2017 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the for short ‘Code’
Negotiable Instruments Act, 18812 by condoning the delay of 10 days in filing the Complaint and learned counsel representing both sides submitted their arguments. The trial Court heard the arguments in the petition for condoning the delay in filing the private complaint and subsequently, the Complainant filed an application for reopening the matter for further hearing. Then the said application was numbered as Crl.M.P.No.912 of 2018 and orders were passed therein, as if it is the petition for condoning the delay. Impugning the said Order, the accused is before this Court seeking quashment of the impugned Order in Crl.M.P.No.912 of 2018. Learned counsel further would submit that before filing the Complaint, a notice has been issued and the Petitioner also got issued a reply.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 vehemently opposed this Criminal Petition and further would submit that the impugned Order is an irregular one and Court may pass appropriate orders.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel representing both parties and on a keen perusal of the impugned Order passed by the learned Magistrate, it appears, under misconception, Crl.M.P.No.912 of 2018 in CFR No.2355 of 2017 is filed to condone the delay of 10 days. The cause title of the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.912 of 2018 in CFR No.2355 of 2017, would show that the learned Magistrate has dealt with the contentions raised by both counsel representing both parties and passed the impugned order and it is a reasoned Order. Nothing has been argued touching the merits of the impugned order. This may be an irregular order. It is represented that now for short ‘the Act’
C.C.No.1400 of 2022 is pending before the trial Court and is coming up for trial. The impugned order, which was passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.912 of 2018 in CFR No.2355 of 2017 does not brook any interference of this Court, since the same has been passed under misconception and hence, the same can be treated as the Order passed in CFR. In such circumstances, the impugned Order can be treated as an Order passed in CFR No.2355 of 2017.
6. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:31.07.2024 JLV
190 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.5121 of 2022 Dt.31.07.2024 JLV
