The court dismissed the criminal petition due to the default of the petitioner's counsel and the non-appearance of the petitioners, who evinced no interest in the matter despite prior adjournments for dismissal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APHC010062652019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3333]
MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1341/2019
Between:
N.v.k.s.subba Raju and Others
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
K Kanikeswara Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.T S ANIRUDH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Earlier, when the matter has been listed on 18.06.2024, 25.06.2024, 30.07.2024 and on 05.08.2024, there is no representation for the petitioner(s) and the matter has been posted to today i.e., 12.08.2024 under the caption ‘for dismissal’.
Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Petition, shall also stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
Date: 12.08.2024 Pnr
N.v.k.s.subba Raju and Others
K Kanikeswara Rao and Others
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
