APHC010412132022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 6245, 6246 and 6247 of 2022 Between:

Reyyala Bhumija ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Andhra Pradrsh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6246/2022 Between:

Reyyala Bhumija ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6247/2022 Between:

Reyyala Bhumija ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

2. G V S MEHAR KUMAR The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

These three Criminal Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as the parties in all the three cases are one and the same.

2. The Criminal Petitions three in number were 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”), seeking to quash the orders passed against the prosecution or the petitioner in Crl.M.P.Nos.2513, 2514 and 2515 of 2018 arising in C.C. No.653 of 2018 arising in Crime No.249 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “the I.P.C.”).

3. Crl.M.P.No.2513 of 2021 was filed by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court for issue summons 1) to the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Alamuru Branch to produce original cheque vide No.AB/SB/CTC/2015/DL, dated 19.05.2018, (2) to the Branch manager, H.D.F.C, Srinagar Branch, Kakinada to produce certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act relating to the date furnished by them to P.W.2 pertaining to the account of P.W.2, (3) to the Branch Manager, SBI, Timmapuram Branch to set aside the ex-parte order dated 05.09.2019.

4. Crl.M.P.No.2514 of 2021 was filed by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court for issue summons to the Branch Managers of Union Bank of India, Alamuru Branch, HDFC Bank, Srinagar Branch, Kakinada and SBI, Thimmapuram branch as additional witnesses and permit the prosecution to examine then on behalf of the prosecution in the interest of the justice.

5. Crl.M.P.No.2515 of 2021 was filed by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court to reopen the evidence of P.W.2 and recall P.W.2 and permit him to give evidence as to the Ex.P4 to Ex.P8 which were marked through P.W.1 for further chief examination i.e., for the purpose of elicit the connected facts in the interest of justice.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

7. Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the deletion of Accused Nos. 3 and 4, despite specific overt acts attributed to them in the complaint and statements recorded under Section 161 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ is arbitrary and unsustainable. He further submits that the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 319 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ though supported by ample material on record, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner was compelled to approach the Director of Prosecutions due to failure of the regular Assistant Public Prosecutor to place vital material evidence before the trial court. He further submits that the petitions filed under Sections 91 and 311 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ were bona-fide attempts to secure necessary documentary and oral evidence essential for a just adjudication of the case. The learned Trial Court granted repeated adjournments to the accused for cross-examination, while th