IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.2181 OF 2009 Between: Padala Srinivas Reddy …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.2181 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the impugned order dated 30.12.2008 in Criminal Revision Petition No.6 of 2008, on the file of the VI-Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, wherein the said revision filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed as not maintainable and confirmed the order dated 08.10.2007 in C.C.No.620 of 2005, on the file of the III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry, whereunder the accused was acquitted. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the second respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.620 of 2005. On 08.10.2007, the petitioner/complainant was absent and the accused was present and no representation was made on behalf of the petitioner and even costs of Rs.250/- imposed were also not paid and, therefore, the complaint was dismissed for default. By the same order, the accused was further acquitted and bail bonds were cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.6 of 2008. By the impugned order dated 30.12.2008, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said revision petition, holding that the order of the trial Court, dismissing the complaint does not call for any interference. It was further observed that the revision is not maintainable as the remedy of appeal is available. Assailing the said order, the present criminal petition is filed. 4. The impugned order, dismissing the revision petition as not maintainable, does not call for any interference. As a specific remedy of appeal is available, the revision petition was rightly held to be not maintainable. In the present criminal petition also, the petitioner seeks permission to prefer an appeal against the order in C.C.No.620 of 2005. While a statutory remedy is available, the question of granting any permission to prefer an appeal does not arise. The petitioner/complainant is at liberty to prefer an appeal against the order dated 08.10.2007 in C.C.No.620 of 2005, on the file of the III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry, if the same is permissible under law and is not barred. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of accordingly. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th December, 2011 Lrkm