Defacto complainant sought quash of revision proceedings arising from a criminal case; the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat and the petition was permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9874 OF 2023
Between:
Lankothala Pallavi, W/o. Kola Raghavendra Kumar, Agedabout30 years. Housewife, R/o. D. No. 44/14-3, Chemmumiyapeta, Kadapa City
...PETITIONER/DEFACTO/COMPLAINANT AND
The State Of Ap, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.
...RESPONDENT
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ACCUSED Nos.1 to 4
f
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased may be pleased to call for the records and quash/setting aside the order in Criminal Revision Petition No.49 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa U/Sec. 397 r/w 399 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before against order passed in Crl.M.P.No.997 of 2022 in C.C.No.l22 of 2018, dated 04.08.2022 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Offenses, Kadapa.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 209:^
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No. 122 of 2018 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Offenses, Kadapa. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum Of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MUJTAHID HUSSAIN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent No.
The Court made the following ORDER :
APHC010618342023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368] (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9874/2023
Between;
Lankothala Pallavi
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Ap and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.MUJTAHID HUSSAIN
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1 .PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following order;
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quash of the proceedings in CRP No.49 of2022onthe file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa District. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permissionofthis Court to withdraw the present Criminal Petition by stating that the
matter was settled before the Lok Adalat.
2
To,
- Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State is in attendance.
- Permission is accorded.
- Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall stand closed. SD/- SK.A/IOHAMMED RAFI assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
- The Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa District
- One CC to SRI. MUJTAHID HUSSAIN Advocate [OPUCJ
- Two CCs to the PUBLIC prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravathi [OUT] 4. three CD COPIES
TAC
i
HIGH COURT
DATED:13/09/2024
ORDER
CRLP.No.9874 of 2023
ANO/^
?fx 3 0 NCV 202'» m
to
. Current Section
THE CRLP IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lankothala Pallavi
The State of AP
Kola Raghavendra Kumar
Kola Krihsnaveni
Kola Eswaraiah
Boddu Rajitha
B V L N Chakravarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
