IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3311 of 2008 DATE:22.07.2010 Between: Dr.B.Nirmala …… Petitioner/Accused And: Smt.Nagamani and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3311 of 2008 ORDER : When trial of the case is half-way through in the lower Court, the petitioner/accused approached this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.637 of 2006 on the basis of Ex.P- 7 which is marked by the 1st respondent/complainant in her examination-in- chief as P.W-1. I am sure that this Court cannot assess evidence in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2) The only point put forward by the petitioner’s counsel is that the complainant has addressed the statutory notice to a wrong address of the accused and that therefore there is no valid and legal demand as per proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) and that consequently there is no cause of action for entertaining the case as per Section 142 of the Act. These are all matters which the trial Court has to go into and decide having regard to P.W-1’s cross-examination and D.W-1’s evidence. The only mistake in the address is stated to be that instead of house No.303, it was mentioned in the registered letter as house No.301. It is a matter of fact as to how the complainant has addressed the letter to house No.301. P.W-1 will be explaining the same during her evidence and is going to cross-examine the accused in case she enters into witness box. I do not find any material in this case to interfere and to intercept trial of the case at this advanced stage. 3) The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on B.Adhikari V. Ponraj[1] of the Madras High Court and Rajiv Kumar V. State of U.P[2] of the Allahabad High Court in support of his factual question. The said decisions will be appreciated by the trial Court in case those two decisions are cited before the trial Court during the course of arguments. 4) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 22, 2010 KSH [1] 1996 Cri.L.J.180 [2] 1991 Cri.L.J.3010