Doddu Somulu, Visakhapatnam Dist. Vs Vechalapu Simhachalam, Vizianagaram Dist. & Ano

DODDU SOMULU, S /O SANYASI, PROPRIETOR SRI L A XMI GAS AGENCIES SITUATED IN SKOTA, R/O SIVALINGAPURA M VILLAGE OF ANANTHAGIRI M A NDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

VECHALAPU SIMHA C HALAM, S/O. LATE NARAYANA, R/ O PAVADA VILLAGE, JAMI MAN D AL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

¶14

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIG H COURT, HYDERABAD

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the Order in CrI.M.P.No.705 o f 2015 in C.C.No.158 of 2012 on th e file of the Judicial First Class Magi s trate Court, Srungavarapu Kota, Vi z ianagaram District and set aside the same by directing the Trial Court to sen d the Ex.P1 Document for Hand Writin g Expert as prayed in the petition, in th e interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders may deem to fit and pr o per in the

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2015 (CRLRCMP 3122 OF 2015

¶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 stay of all further proceedi n gs in C.C.No.158 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial

¶19

2

¶20

First Class Magistrate Court at S.Kota, Vizianagaram District, in the interest of Justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.KURITI BHASKARA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶25

2.B S MANI KUMAR

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶27

1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 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 20.07.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.705 of 2015 in C.C.No.158 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).

¶28

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in this Criminal Revision Case.

¶29

3. It is evident from the record that the petitioner/accused filed Crl.M.P.No.705 of 2015 in C.C.No.158 of 2012 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send Ex.P1 cheque to the Government Handwriting Expert, Hyderabad, for comparison of the handwriting of the contents written on Ex.P1 with his admitted signature thereon, to determine whether both were written by the same person at the same time, as per the evidence of PW.2.

¶30

4. The Trial Court, after a careful consideration of the evidence on record and upon hearing both parties, dismissed the petition by its order dated 20.07.2015.

¶31

5. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.705 of 2015 in C.C.No.158 of 2012, the petitioner herein has preferred the present Crl.R.C.No.1990 of 2015.

¶32

3

¶33

6. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

¶34

7. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 2^nd respondent / State, contends that as per the status report obtained from the E-courts portal, Calendar Case No.158 of 2012, in which the order dated 20.07.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.705 of 2015 was passed, was finally dismissed on contest before the Trial Court on 03.12.2015. 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.

¶35

8. 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 C.C., in which the impugned order was passed, already stands dismissed, 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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

________________________

¶39

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

¶40

Date: 13.10.2025 S A K

¶41

4