IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.4670 OF 2009 Between:- S.Nagaraju Naidu …Petitioner A n d The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.4670 OF 2009 ORDER: None appears for the petitioner. No representation is made on behalf his behalf. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed assailing the order dated 04-06-2009, wherein the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed for default for non-payment of the process in time to summon the witnesses. 3. As seen from the docket proceedings of the trial Court, the petitioner-complainant filed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking issuance of summons to the witnesses and after hearing both sides, the said petition was allowed on 17-04-2009 directing issuance of summons to L.Ws.2 to 5 on payment of process. The petitioner-complainant, did not, however pay the process in time. However, the process paid along with a petition was allowed on 30-04-2009, imposing costs of Rs.200/-. Summons were, therefore, directed to be issued to L.Ws.2 to 5 for their appearance on 07-05- 2009. The summons were served on L.Ws.2 and 5, but they were absent. As there was no representation, bailable warrants were issued to LWs.2 and 5 while ordering fresh summons to L.Ws.3 and 4 and the matter was posted to 04-06-2009. On that date, the complainant was present, but the process was not paid. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the complaint for default, as the complainant has not shown any justifiable ground to condone the delay. 4. The impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the complaint for non-payment of the process does not call for any interference by this Court, as the said order was passed in exercise of discretionary power of the trial Court and the petitioner-complainant has not chosen to pay the process. The trial Court was justified in exercising its discretionary power by dismissing the complaint. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the said order by exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th January, 2011 Lrkm.