KALYANI KRISHNA CHITS PVT.LTD v. PAYASAM VENKATA RAMAYYA

STATION, PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATHI. KAKINADA, REPRESENTED ITS BY ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 189 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, Kakinada district, (Erstwhile East Godavari 2 District) and pass CC Number is amended as per the Court order dated 06.05.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.12 of 2023. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in CC 189/2016 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 amend the Calendar Case No.189 of 2017 instead C.C.No.189 of 2016 in the main prayer of the criminal petition and also in the interlocutory application and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

2. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 96/2023 Between:

1. KALYANI KRISHNA CHITS PVT LTD.,, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, YANAM VENKATA RAMAN MURTHY, S/O CHINA KRISHNA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/ O D.NO. 2-9-9A, VENKAT NAGAR, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. PAYASAM VENKATA RAMAYYA, S/O P.L. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O KAKINADA DISTRICT, GANJAMVARI STREET, KAKINADA, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH II TOWN POLICE PUBLIC STATION, PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATHI. KAKINADA, REPRESENTED ITS BY ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 pleased to quash the order dated 13.09.2022 made in Crl.M.P.No.2099 of 2022 in C.C.No.189 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, Kakinada district, (Erstwhile East Godavari District) by allowing the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant Stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 189 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, Kakinada district, (Erstwhile East Godavari District) and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 amend the Calendar Case No.189 of 2017 instead C.C.No.189 of 2016 in the main prayer of the criminal petition and also in the interlocutory application and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

2. 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 12 & 96 of 2023 COMMON ORDER: The instant Criminal Petitions under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short „BNSS‟) have been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant, seeking quashment of the Orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.2100 of 2022 and 2099 of 2022 in C.C.No.189 of 2017 by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, Kakinada District (Erstwhile East Godavari District) by allowing the same.

2. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State is in attendance. Notice served on the learned Counsel for the Respondent/accused before the Trial Court, none represented for the Respondent/accused.

3. Since the subject matter in these Criminal Petitions is one and the same, at the request of the learned counsel on both sides, these matters are heard together and passed the following Common Order.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the complainant, who filed private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as “NI Act”), which is pending on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada in C.C.No.189 of 2017. The Petitioner is the Managing Director of the Kalyani Krishna Chits, Pvt. Ltd. He 5 would further submit that in cross examination of the Petitioner herein as PW- 1, deposed that he is the Managing Director of Kalyani Krishna Chits Pvt. Ltd. When a question was posed to him about filing of any documents in proof of it, the Petitioner as PW-1 answered that he has not filed any documents to show that he is the Managing Director of the said firm.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that thereafter, the Petitioner has moved applications in Crl.M.P.Nos. 2099 of 2022 and 2100 of 2022 filed under Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C., to receive the documents i.e., minutes of proceedings of Board of Directors dated 18.10.2011 and to recall the PW-1 for marking the said documents, when the matter is coming up for arguments. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the petitions under the impression that PW-1 admitted in the cross examination that one Rudrayya, foreman, is the Managing Director. Contradicting the same, now the Petitioner i.e., the complainant is claiming that he is the Managing Director. The another reason for the learned Trial Judge to dismiss the applications is that no reasons are assigned for filing this document at a belated stage, though it is available with the Petitioner.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the said Rudrayya, whose name is referred in the cross examination of PW-1, was the then foreman who resigned on 16.12.2013. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that a fair opportunity may be given to the complainant to place the relevant document before the Court by recalling the PW-1. 6

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

8. Considering the submissions made, since under the mistaken impression that one Rudrayya is the Managing Director, but the complainant is claiming that he is the Managing Director of the company, the Petitions were dismissed. In that view, as rightly put by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, a fair opportunity shall be given to both sides to prove their contentions, for conducting a fair trial.

9. In the result, these Criminal Petitions are allowed, on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each, payable to the Accused. The impugned Orders dated 13.09.2022 are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 22.11.2025. UPS 224 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 12 & 96 of 2023 Dated.22.11.2025 UPS