HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4703 of 2​008 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Neelakanteswara Rao the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) to quash the proceedings in the calendar case C.C.No.315 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District or in the alternative to quash the order dated 14.06.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1608 of 2007 in the said C.C.No.315 of 2005 by the said Court. 3. The petitioner herein is the accused in the aforesaid C.C.No.315 of 2005. That case pertains to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. It is seen that earlier by an order dated 14.05.2007 the learned Magistrate eschewed the evidence of complainant who gave chief examination evidence as P.W1 as he failed to turn up for cross- examination. Thereafter the complainant filed Crl.M.P. No.1608 of 2007 in the said C.C. to recall the order dated 14.05.2007 and to give him a chance to give evidence in the case. That petition was allowed on 14.06.2008. Questioning that order this petition is filed by the 4. Sri Neelakanteswara Rao the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner very vehemently argued that the proceedings in the said calendar case are without any basis and therefore should be quashed or in the alternative the order in the Crl.M.P.No.1608 of 2007 giving a further opportunity to the complainant to lead his evidence should be set aside as there was no reason at all to give further opportunity to complainant to lead his evidence in the matter. 5. A perusal of the complaint would show that the allegations made therein do disclose an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and this is not a case where it can be said that the allegations even if believed to be true do not disclose an offence. Hence the relief claimed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in the said calendar case cannot be granted. 6. Then coming to the order dated 14.06.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1608 of 2007, a perusal of the same would disclose that the learned Magistrate has considered the matte and exercised his power in favour of the complainant in order to give him further opportunity to lead his evidence. In the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate suffers from any infirmity. Accordingly it follows that there are no reasons to entertain this criminal petition and the same is dismissed. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 24th March 2011 CVRK