Disposed¶26

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Mar 2025CRLP/2162/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: missing vakalathnama of complainant's advocate; declaration that C.C. No.241 of 2015 proceedings invalid; dismissal of complaint; discharge of accused; Crl.M.P. No.48 of 2025 and Crl.M.P. No.2596 of 2024 (JFCM Anaparthi, orders dated 16.01.2025); Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 2 & 3 of 2025 (Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District); delay of 12-year-old proceedings; costs Rs.10,000/- per revision set aside; criminal petitions disposed; common order by Justice Harinath.N.

What did the court decide?

Costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed in each revision petition set aside; the rest of the respective orders of the learned Sessions Judge upheld; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶26

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed in each revision petition set aside; the rest of the respective orders of the learned Sessions Judge upheld; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere with the orders dated 03.02.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, dismissing the petitioner's miscellaneous-petition challenges (invalidity of C.C. No.241 of 2015 for want of the complainant's vakalathnama; dismissal of complaint and discharge of accused). +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The petitioner set forth no valid grounds to interfere; this Court found no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Considering the submissions, the Court deemed it appropriate to set aside the orders dated 03.02.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, only to the extent of the costs, upholding the rest of the respective orders.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Justice Harinath.N) disposing Criminal Petition Nos. 2254 & 2162 of 2025 filed by Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. and another against the orders dated 03.02.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District) in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 2 & 3 of 2025. Those revisions had challenged the orders dated 16.01.2025 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi dismissing Crl.M.P. No.48 of 2025 (seeking declaration that the proceedings in C.C. No.241 of 2015 were invalid because the vakalathnama of the complainant's advocate was missing) and Crl.M.P. No.2596 of 2024 (seeking dismissal of the complaint and discharge of the accused). The Sessions Court had dismissed the revisions, observing an attempt to delay proceedings initiated 12 years back, and imposed costs of Rs.10,000/- in each. The High Court found no valid grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned Sessions Court orders, but on the petitioner's counsel's submission set them aside only to the extent of the costs, upholding the rest.

¶1

[3457]

¶2

APHC010092712025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No:2254 OF 2025

¶8

& CRIMINAL PETITION No.2162 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. and another …Petitioner/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati and another …Respondents/complainants

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: Sri Rama Murthy P.V.S.A. Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶14

Ld. Public Prosecutor

¶15

The Court made the following common order:

¶16

In these criminal petitions, the petitioner is challenging the orders, dated 03.02.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Ramachandrapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, in respective Criminal Revision Petition Nos.2 & 3 of

¶17

-2-

¶18

CRL.P. No.2162 of 2025 & CRL.P. No.2254 of 2025

¶19

2025, which were filed against the respective orders, dated 16.01.2025, passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi, in Crl.M.P. No.48 of 2025 and Crl.M.P. No.2596 of 2024 in C.C. No.241 of 2015.

¶20

The petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No.48 of 2025 before the learned Magistrate seeking to declare the proceedings initiated in C.C. No.241 of 2015 invalid on the ground that the vakalathnama of the complainant’s advocate is missing. The petitioner also filed Crl. M.P. No.2596 of 2024 before the learned Magistrate to dismiss the complaint in C.C. No.241 of 2015 and discharge the accused. The learned Magistrate had dismissed these criminal miscellaneous petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed criminal revision petitions before the learned Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, which were dismissed on 03.02.2025. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed both the revision petitions observing that the petitioner is attempting to delay the proceedings which were initiated 12 years back. While dismissing the revision petitions, the learned Sessions Judge also imposed the costs of Rs.10,000/- in each revision petition.

¶21

-3-

¶22

CRL.P. No.2162 of 2025

¶23

& CRL.P. No.2254 of 2025

¶24

As the petitioner set forth no valid grounds to interfere with the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order may be modified to the extent of imposition of costs of Rs.10,000/- in each revision petition.

¶25

Considering the submissions, this court deems it appropriate to set aside the orders, dated 03.02.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, in Crl. Revision Petition No.2 of 2025 and 2 of 2025 in Crl. M.P. No.48 of 2025 in C.C. No.241 of 2015, to the extent of costs. The rest of the respective orders shall stand upheld.

¶26

Accordingly, these criminal petitions are disposed off.

¶27

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending if any in these criminal petitions shall stand closed.

¶28

__________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶29

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kambhampati Rambabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gongal Reddy Sesha Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Balaga Santosh Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Lekkala Pavan Kumar Chowdary, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Maradani Leela Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Maradani Leela Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh