Dismissed¶35

Bandaru Sarojini v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Dec 2025CRLRC/3059/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC010824232018; [3369]; Bandaru Sarojini and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another; Crl.R.C. No. 3059 of 2018; Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao; decision dated 08.12.2025; Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.; challenge to issuance of summons; C.C.No.239 of 2018; Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni; appearance date 11.07.2018; case disposed on contest 09.11.2020 ending in acquittal; revision dismissed as infructuous; interim orders vacated; miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

In view of the disposal of C.C.No.239 of 2018 on 09.11.2020 (on contest, ending in acquittal), the cause does not survive for adjudication and the revision becomes infructuous. ¶33

Bandaru Sarojini Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[3369]

¶2

APHC010824232018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3059 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

BANDARU SAROJINI, W/O. OMKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT, 62 YEARS, R/O. PEDANA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶9

BANDARU OMKAR RAO, S/O. LATE SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. PEDANA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶10

VUJJI. SAI PRABHA, W/O. MUKUNDARAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. SAROORNAGAR, HYDERABAD.

¶11

VUJJI MUKUNDARAO, W/O. LATE SOMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O. SAROORNAGAR, HYDERABAD

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O, TUNI TOWN POLICE STATION, E.G.DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, HYDERABAD.

¶15

KANYAKUMARI BANDARU, W/O. VENKATA SAI BABU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. TUNI TOWN, E.G.DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Revision filed under Section 397 of 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 allow the Criminal Revision case by

¶18

¶19

setting aside the summons issued in C.C.No. 239 of 2018 in spite of not charge the petitioners in the charge sheet on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tuni, and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶21

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 of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No. 239 of 2018 on the file the Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tuni, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C and to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶23

1.VENKATESWERLLU KESAMSETTY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.SRI K. SANDEEP, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioners/accused under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) assailing the issuance of summons against the petitioners, who are arrayed as A.2 to A.5 in C.C.No.239 of 2018 by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni.

¶29

2. Heard and perused the record.

¶30

3. The trial Court seems to have issued summons to the petitioners/A.2 to A.5 to appear before the Court on 11.07.2018. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners/A.2 to A.5 preferred the revision.

¶31

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the C.C.No.239 of 2018 was disposed on 09.11.2020. In support of this, a copy from the e-Courts website has been filed, which reflects that the said C.C.No.239 of 2018 was disposed on contest on 09.11.2020 and ended in acquittal.

¶32

¶33

5. Recording the said submission of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and in view of the disposal of the C.C.No.239 of 2020 on 09.11.2020, this Court finds the cause does not survive for adjudication and the matter would become infructuous.

¶34

6. Recording the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and in view of the disposal of the C.C.No.239 of 2020 on 09.11.2020, this Court finds the cause does not survive for adjudication and the matter would become infructuous.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶38

Date: 08.12.2025 MS

¶39

¶40

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶41