Dismissed¶21

Gowda Jermiah Rajesh & Another v. the State of a.P., & Another

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Oct 2025CRLRC/1021/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision Case No. 1021 of 2014, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao), decided 24.10.2025. Revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the appellate order dated 28.3.2014 in Crl.A.No.221 of 2010 (II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam) confirming the order dated 03.11.2010 in D.V.C.No.5 of 2008 (IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam). Dismissed as infructuous: counsel stated the matrimonial disputes between the parties stood settled, so the cause did not survive; merits not examined.

What did the court decide?

Upon recording learned counsel's submission that the matrimonial disputes between the parties are already settled, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as cause does not survive. ¶20-21

Gowda Jermiah Rajesh & Another Vs the State of a.P., & Another — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010167542014

¶2

[3369]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE T WENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1021 OF 2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gowda Jermiah Rajesh & A nother and Others

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of A P Another a nd Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶14

1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶16

1.PUBLIC PROSECUT O R (AP)

¶17

The Court made the following Order:

¶18

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 a nd 401 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the o rder dated 28.3.2014 passed in Crl. A .No.221 of 2010 on the file of t h e II Additional Metropolitan Sessi o ns Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the Order dated 03.11.2010 in D.V.C.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additio n al Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visak h apatnam.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accor d ing to the instructions received the m a trimonial disputes between the parties are already settled. As such, cause in t h e revision petition does not survive.

¶20