Dismissed¶40

Modam Chandra Sekhar v. P. Bala Guravaiah

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Nov 2025CRLP/500/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh HC, Amaravati; Crl.P. No. 500 of 2024; decided 05.11.2025 by Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition; refusal to interfere with dismissal of Section 391 Cr.P.C. application in NI Act cheque-dispute appeal Crl.A.No.33 of 2019; payment receipt photocopy not marked at trial (D.W.1); original receipt in pending civil suit OS No.17 of 2019; receipt not a new document; photocopy filing not tenable; petition dismissed; conviction under Section 138 NI Act, CC No.222 of 2017; Rs.16,00,000/- compensation; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Criminal Petition is dismissed and miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed ¶40

Modam Chandra Sekhar Vs P. Bala Guravaiah — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Criminal Petition is dismissed and miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 02.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.189 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.33 of 2019 dismissing the Petitioner's Section 391 Cr.P.C. application warrants interference/quashing by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The subject document (receipt) is not a new document and was well within the Petitioner's knowledge; had he intended to file it, he ought to have placed it on record during the pendency of the trial in CC before the Trial Court itself, but for reasons best known he did not do so.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Having kept silent for all these years and having represented in the appeal that the original of the receipt is filed in a civil suit pending before the concerned civil court, the Petitioner's attempt to file the photocopy of the receipt in the appeal is not tenable in the eye of law.

¶38

Key takeaways

The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasoned order and does not require interference by this Court in the Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa), Criminal Petition No. 500 of 2024, decided 05.11.2025: Dismisses a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. refusing to interfere with the order dated 02.11.2023 of the Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST PoA Cases-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge), Kadapa, rejecting the accused-appellant's application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. in Crl.A.No.33 of 2019 (appeal arising from conviction under Section 138 NI Act in CC No.222 of 2017, sentence of one year simple imprisonment and Rs.16,00,000/- compensation) to receive and mark a payment receipt offered only in photocopy. The Court held that the receipt was not a new document and was within the petitioner's knowledge from the trial stage; that having remained silent through the years, and with the original receipt lying in a pending civil suit (OS No.17 of 2019, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa), tendering the photocopy in the appeal was not tenable in law; hence the impugned order was reasoned and required no interference. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

¶1

APHC010038802024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3396]

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 500/2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

MODAM CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O.MODAM OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6/758, UPSTAIRS, SANKARAPURAM, KADAPA CITY, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

1. P BALA GURAVAIAH, S/O. P.M. GURRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.13/300, CHITARI KONDAPPA VEEDHI, KADAPA CITY, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT.

¶11

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

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶13

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 Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 02.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.l89 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.33 of 2019 on the file of the Hon’ble Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.C/S.T (POA) Act Cases-Cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, and allow the criminal petition

¶14

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner in Crl.A.No.33 of 2019 on the file of the Hon’ble Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.C/S.T (POA) Act Cases-Cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition

¶16

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to pass extension of interim order dated 05.02.2024 in Crl.P. No.500 of 2024 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2024

¶20

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 to pass extension of interim order dated 28.02.2024 in Crl.P. No.500 of 2024 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

¶22

1.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶23

1.BANKA NAGESWARA RAO

¶24

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶25

¶26

ORDER :

¶27

The instant Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of

¶28

the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „Cr.P.C.‟) for the following relief:

¶29

“ ... to quash the order dated 02.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.l89 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.33 of 2019 on the file of the Hon‟ble Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.C/S.T (POA) Act Cases-Cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, and allow the criminal petition ...”

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State and learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the material on record.

¶31

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that respondent No.1/Complainant filed a private complaint against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act which is the subject matter in CC No.222 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa. Vide Judgment dated 06.03.2019, the Trial Court convicted the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- to the complainant, in default, shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.33 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST(PoA) Act cases-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Learned counsel would further submit that in that appeal, Petitioner filed a petition under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to receive documents and mark them on his

¶32

¶33

behalf. The said document is the receipt showing entire payment of due amount to the complainant by the Petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that during his examination before the Trial Court, as D.W.1, the said document is not marked on his behalf. Further, in the suit in OS No.17 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadpapa, wherein, the receipt was filed as a document. Learned counsel would submit that the payment receipt is the crux of the matter and the Learned Sessions Judge erroneously dismissed the Petition vide Order dated 02.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.189 of 2020, which is impugned in this Criminal Petition on the ground that Petitioner filed photo copy of the receipt, but not the original receipt.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the Criminal Appeal is of the year 2019 and since then, the Petitioner did not chose to place the subject document before the Trial Court. Further, the said document is not a new one and it is within the knowledge of the Petitioner right from pending CC before the Trial Court. Learned counsel would finally prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

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

¶36

Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by learned counsel for respondent, the fact remains that the subject document(receipt) is not a new document and it is well within the knowledge of the Petitioner. If he intended to file the document, he might have

¶37

¶38

placed on record during pendency of CC before the Trial Court itself. For the reasons best known, Petitioner did not do so. By keeping silent for all these years, in the appeal, petitioner represented that the original of the said document (receipt) is filed in a civil suit which is pending for consideration before the concerned civil court and he intend to file the photocopy of the receipt in this appeal, which is not tenable in the eye of law.

¶39

For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasoned order and it does not require interference of this Court in this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶40

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶41

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶42

closed.

¶43

DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶44

Mjl/*

¶45

¶46