Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1/2026 of SR Minerals Rep by its Proprietor VRamesh Vs Viswa Jyothi Exim alias Logistic Private Limited on 16 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1/2026 Between: 1. SR MINERALS REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR VRAMESH,
APHC010720132025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1/2026
Between:
1. SR MINERALS REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR VRAMESH, S/O LATE
SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.
NO.
6-1,
KRISHNARAYAPURAM,CHINNA
MUSHIDIWADA,
PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM.
2. V RAMESH, S/O LATE SAMBASIVA RAOOCC PROPRIETOR M/S.
S.R. MINERALS,AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-93- 6,SECTOR-V, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. VISWA JYOTHI EXIM ALIAS LOGISTIC PRIVATE LIMITED, REP BY
ITS
MANAGING
DIRECTOR
K.
SUBRAHMANYA
DATTATREYADATTU RAJU S/O LATE SRI K.V.S.N. RAJU, OCC
BUSINESS,AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 58-14-46/1, MARRIPALEM,VUDA LAYOUT, VISAKHAPATNAM-09,
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATI.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased topleased to allow the Revision Petition and modify the order dated 21-11-2025 made in CrI.M.P.
No. 1158 of 2025 in Crl. Appeal No.430 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Visakhapatnam by setting aside the condition of imposing the deposit of 20% of cheque amount while suspending the sentence imposed in CC No. 194 of 2018 on the file of Hon'ble II Special Magistrate: Visakhapatnam, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to SUSPEND the operation of judgment dated 14-10-2025 made in CC No. 194 of 2018 on the file of Hon'ble II Special Magistrate:
Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of main Criminal Revision Case, and to pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to EXTEND the time for compliance of the condition imposed
i.e. deposit of 10% of cheque amount through the order dated 06.01.2026
made in lA No. 1 of 2026 in CrI.R.C. No. 01 of 2026, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2.
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioners / Appellants seeking to modify the order dated 21.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1158of 2025 in Crl.A.No.430 of 2025 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam by setting aside the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation before the Trial Court within 60 days from the date of the said Order.
2. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent State. Perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners and the respondent No.1 are companies registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Further, the respondent No.1 forcibly obtained the cheques from the petitioners and the petitioners are seriously disputing the issuance of cheque in favour of the respondent No.1. Out of business dealings, there are money transactions between the two companies and in view of the serious financial disputes between the parties, the petitioner company could not pay the 20% of the cheque amount as ordered by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in Crl.M.P.No.1158 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.430 of 2025, dated 21.11.2025. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order to the extent of depositing the cheque amount.
4. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
5. Considering the submissions made, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of directing the petitioners for depositing 20% of the cheque amount as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, within one week from today.
Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed.
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 17.04.2026 Mjl/* CC by today
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.R.C.No. 01 of 2026
Dt.17.04.2026
Mjl/*