Dismissed¶¶36

Nunna Durga Ravi Vara Prasad v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Jul 2025CRLP/1702/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash petition dismissed; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; Crl.M.P.No.396/2024 in Crl.Appeal No.222/2022; IV Additional District Judge Tanuku West Godavari; handwriting expert; signature comparison; Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-3; repetitive/second application; reasoned order; no grounds to interfere; Nunna Durga Ravi Vara Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.; Criminal Petition No.1702/2025; decided 17.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

A similar application had earlier been filed by the accused/petitioner before the Trial Court, was dismissed, and the case ended in conviction. ¶¶35

Nunna Durga Ravi Vara Prasad Vs the State of Andhra… — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

APHC010077392025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3396]

¶6

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1702/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

NUNNA DURGA RAVI VARA PRASAD, S/O.DHANA RAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.VELPURU VILLAGE, TANUKU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P AT AMARAVATI.

¶15

BODAPATI SUSESH, S/O.SHAKSHI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O.VELPURU VILLAGE, TANUKU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶17

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High CourtPleased to call for the records pertaining to CrI.M.P No.396/2024 in CrI.Appeal No.222/2022, dt.28.01.2025 on the file of the on the file of the IV Addi.District Judge at Tanuku, West Godavari District and Quash the same and pass

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to Stay of all further proceedings in CrI.M.P No.396/2024 in CrI.Appeal No.222/2022, dt.28.01.2025 on the file of

¶20

¶21

the on the file of the IV Addi.District Judge at Tanuku, West Godavari District and Quash the same and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶23

1.MANDA VENKATESWARA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶25

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1702/2025

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.396 of 2024 in Crl.Appeal No.222 of 2022 dated 28.01.2025 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

¶30

Heard Sri Manda Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Court, he filed another petition with a prayer to send Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-3 to the handwriting expert for comparison of his signature, that petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to work out his remedies.

¶32

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶33

¶34

Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material

¶35

placed on record, it is a case where, the petitioner being the accused filed a similar application before the Trial Court, that was dismissed and the case was ended in conviction. Now, the petitioner filed the very same petition before the appellate court with the prayer to send the documents vide Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-3 for comparison to the Expert which was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Judge. There are no grounds to interfere in the order since, the impugned order is a reasoned one.

¶36