Goda Mohan Rao Vs the State of a.P., & Another

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t hat in the circumstances stated in th e affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court ma y be pleased to call for records pertaining to the Orders Dated: 06-06-2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1434 of 2016 in C.C.No. 1 06 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fir s t Class, at Tiruvuru, and consequentl y set aside the same and pass

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 2916 OF 2016

¶18

Petition under Sectio n 151 CPC praying that in the circumsta n ces stated in the affidavit filed in supp o rt of the petition, the High Court may b e pleased to order stay of all further Pr o ceedings in C.C.No.106 of 2015 on th e file of the

¶19

2

¶20

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Tiruvuru, pending disposal of the main Criminal Revision Petition and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.VENKATESWARLU CHAKKILAM

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶25

2.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶27

1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is preferred on behalf of the petitioner/accused challenging the order dated 06.06.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1434 of 2016 in Calendar Case No.106 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvur (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).

¶28

2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the petitioner/accused's request under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer a postal acknowledgment to a handwriting expert for verification of the signature's authenticity by comparing it with the petitioner’s known signatures on the vakalatnama, summons, and other documents.

¶29

3. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶30

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that C.C.No.106 of 2015 on the file of Trial Court was transferred to Principal Junior Civil Judge at Tiruvur and subsequently renumbered as C.C.No.111 of 2017. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also concurs with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Upon verification of the particulars, including the cheque number, this Court finds the same to be correct.

¶31

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1^st respondent / State, contends that as per the status report obtained from the E-courts portal, Calendar Case No.106 of 2015 (subsequently renumbered as C.C.NO.111 of

¶32

3

¶33

2017), wherein the order dated 06.06.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1434 of 2016 was passed, was finally disposed before the Trial Court on 10.01.2018. He further contends that, in view of the dismissal of the main case, the present Criminal Revision directed against the said interlocutory order no longer survives for independent adjudication and has, therefore, become infructuous.

¶34

6. This Court, upon a careful consideration of the submission advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and having regard to the fact that the very Calendar Case in which the impugned order was passed already stands disposed, is of the considered view that nothing further remains for determination in the present Revision Case. Since the main case has been concluded and has attained finality, any challenge to an interlocutory order passed therein has lost its relevance, and adjudicating the present Criminal Revision Case would serve no useful purpose.

¶35

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous .

¶36

Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

_______________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

¶38

Date: 14.10.2025 S A K

¶39

4

¶40

138