V.Chandra Sekhara Reddy Vs J.Janradhana Boyadu — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

V.Chandra Sekhara Reddy Vs J.Janradhana Boyadu — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Criminal Revision Case was disposed of without adjudicating the merits; interim orders granted earlier, if any, were vacated and miscellaneous applications pending, if any, were closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 01.01.2016 passed in M.C.No.1 of 2016 by the Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Chittoor remained capable of adjudication in this Criminal Revision Case after disposal of the civil suits between the parties, with appeals pending.

Court's answer

The orders dated 01.01.2016 passed in M.C.No.1 of 2016 on the file of the Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Chittoor do not survive for adjudication in view of the disposal of the civil suits between both the parties.

Ratio / Principle

Both parties have to work out their grievance, if any, in pursuance of the orders in the civil suits, or work out their remedies in the appeals pending therefrom.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Case No.2635 of 2018 under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.: V. Chandra Sekhara Reddy (A-Party) sought to set aside the order dated 20.08.2018 of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor in Crl.R.P.No.08 of 2016, which had reversed the Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Chittoor's order dated 01.01.2016 in M.C.No.1 of 2016. That Magistrate's order, passed on a police complaint dated 26.12.2015 concerning a land dispute, had recorded A-Party's possession and restrained J. Janardhana Boyadu (B-Party) and his associates from entering Sy.No.162/1 (Ac.1.20) and Sy.No.162/6 (Ac.0.95) of Anupalle Village until they proved legal title. Noting that civil suits between the parties over the schedule properties had been disposed of and appeals were pending, the Court held that the Magistrate's orders did not survive for adjudication and that the parties must work out their grievances through the suit orders or the pending appeals. The revision was disposed of; interim orders, if any, stood vacated and miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

[3369]

APHC010727642018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2635 OF 2018

Between:

V.CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY, S/O. LATE V. SRINIVASULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. 19-277, MITTOOR, CHITTOOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

J. JANRADHANA BOYADU, S/O. LATE SRINIVASULU BOYADU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. ANUPALLE VILLAGE, CHITTOR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALUK P.S., CHITTOOR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD, FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH.

THE TAHASILDAR, CUM-MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENTS

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records of the court below and to set aside the Orders dt.20.08.2018 made in Crl.R.P. No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the IX Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor by allowing the Crl.Revision case and to confirm the orders MC.No.1/2016 of the

2

Mandal Executive Magistrate -Cum- Tahsildar, Chittoor, dated 01.01.2016 and to pass.

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

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 stay the operation of the order made in Crl.R.P.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dt. 20.08.2018, pending disposal of the Crl.Revision Case and to pass.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.S V MUNI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.D PURNACHANDRA REDDY

2.SRI K. SANDEEP, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

The Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Petitioner/A-Party under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) seeking to set aside the Order dated 20.08.2018 passed in Crl.R.P.No.08 of 2016 on the file of learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor and to confirm the orders dated 01.01.2016 in M.C.No.1 of 2016 on the file of Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Chittoor.

2. Heard and perused the record.

3. The Revision Petitioner / A-Party states that the Station House Officer, Taluk Police Station, Chittoor, filed a complaint on 26.12.2015 regarding a land dispute between A-Party and B-Party, which had led to quarrels and a law-and-order issue. Basing on the complaint, the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Chittoor issued notices to both parties on 28.12.2015 to submit documents supporting their claims. A-Party produced evidence, while B-Party

3

did not. Based on the available material, the Mandal Executive Magistrate passed orders on 01.01.2016 in M.C. No. 01 of 2016 that A-Party was in possession of the land when the complaint was filed and that B-Party had trespassed and forcibly occupied it. The learned Mandal Executive Magistrate restrained J. Janardhana Boyadu / B-Party and his associates from entering the land in Sy.No.162/1 (Ac.1.20) and Sy.No.162/6 (Ac.0.95) of Anupalle Village until they proved legal title. Aggrieved, B-Party filed a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, allowed the revision on 20.08.2018 in Crl.R.P. No. 08 of 2016, setting aside the Order dated 01.01.2016 in M.C.No.01 of 2016.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, it was brought to the notice of the Court that both parties had filed suits regarding the schedule properties, which have since been disposed of. Appeals have been filed and are still pending.

5. Recording the said submissions of learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is of the view that the orders dated 01.01.2016 passed in M.C.No.1 of 2016 on the file of Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Chittoor does not survive for adjudication in view of the disposal of Civil Suits between both the parties and both parties have to work out their grievance, if any, in pursuance of the orders in the suits or they work out their remedies in pending appeals.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of .

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Date: 05.12.2025 MS

4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2635 of 2018

Date: 05.12.2025

MS