Konduri Atchyutha Suresh Babu, Wg.Dt & 3 Otrs., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp and Anr.

¶1

1

¶2

APHC010428132016

¶3

[3369]

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

TUESDAY, T H E FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2400/2016

¶9

Between:

¶10

KONDURI ATCHYU T HA SURESH BABU, WG.DT & 3 O RS., S/O. KRISHNA, R/O. KUM M ARIPETA, NARASAPURAM, WEST G ODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

KONDURI RAJESH B ABU, S/O. KRISHNA, R/O. KUM M ARIPETA, NARASAPURAM, W E ST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶12

KONDURI NAGAM A NI, W/O. KRISHNA, R/O. KUM M ARIPETA, NARASAPURAM, W E ST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶13

KONDURI VANI, W/O. ATCHUTA SURESHBABU, R/O. KUMMARIPETA, NA R ASAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DIST R ICT.

¶14

...PETITIONER(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

STATE OF AP R E P PP AND ANR, REP. BY TH E PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HY D ERABAD FOR THE STATE O F TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF AP., HYDERABAD.

¶17

KODURU VIJAYA NIRMALA, W/O. ATCHUTA SURESH B A BU, R/O. D.NO. 3-86, GAI G OLUPADU, KAKINADA, EAST G ODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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

¶20

2

¶21

Case, the High Court may be pleased to call for the entire records connected to order dated 18-4-2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.492 of 2016 in C.C.No.380 of 2014 on the file of the court of the learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, examine the same and set it aside.

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2016 (CRLRCMP 3656 OF 2016

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.380 of 2014 on the file of the court of the learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, pending disposal of the main criminal revision case.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.NAMAVARAPU CHANTI BABU

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶28

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶29

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 petitioners/A.1 to A.4 challenging the order dated 18.04.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.492 of 2016 in C.C.No.380 of 2014 on the file of the Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).

¶30

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

¶31

3. It is evident from the record that petitioners herein (A.1 to A.4) filed Crl.M.P.No.492 of 2016 in C.C.No.380 of 2014 under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge from the case. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, dismissed the petition on 18.04.2016.

¶32

3

¶33

4. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.492 of 2016 in C.C.No.380 of 2014, the petitioners herein (A.1 to A.4) have preferred the present Crl.R.C.No.2400 of 2016.

¶34

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

¶35

6. Sri K. Sandeep, 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.380 of 2014, in which the order dated 18.04.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.492 of 2016 was passed, was finally disposed before the Trial Court on 31.07.2017. 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.

¶36

7. 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 has already been disposed of, is of the considered view that nothing further remains for adjudication 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 become infructuous, and proceeding with the present Criminal Revision Case would serve no useful purpose.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

¶40

Date: 14.10.2025 S A K

¶41

4

¶42

120