Dismissed¶27

Kalamkuntla Ramachandra Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Mar 2026CRLP/5415/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Criminal Petition No. 5415 of 2021; Kalamkuntla Ramachandra Reddy (petitioner/accused) v. State of Andhra Pradesh and T Padmanabham (respondents); decided 09.03.2026 by Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; petition dismissed for non-prosecution due to persistent non-appearance of petitioner and counsel; no merits adjudication; useful on procedural consequences of complainant/petitioner absence and closure of interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

The Court opined that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present proceedings, given the absence of representation and failure to advance arguments. ¶26

Kalamkuntla Ramachandra Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010311762021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5415/2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

1.KALAMKUNTLA RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O CHINNA GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. MANDAL INCHARGE, APSHC LTD., R/O D.NO.26/60, VASANTHAPETA, PRODDATUR TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE SHO., PRODDATUR RURAL PS., PRODDATUR,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI.

¶14

2.T PADMANABHAM, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (FAC), AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶17

1.J U M V PRASAD

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶19

1.22258

¶20

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Despite the matter having been listed, there has been no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. Even after affording sufficient opportunity, neither the Petitioner nor his Counsel have chosen to appear or prosecute the case. Even on the date of filing of this Criminal Petition in the year 2021 also there was no representation for the Petitioner.

¶25

It is also pertinent to observe that the present case constitutes one of the oldest matters pending on the roster. The non- appearance of the Petitioner, despite the long pendency of the matter, reflects a lack of diligence.

¶26

In view of the absence of representation and the failure to advance arguments, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present proceedings.

¶27

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution.

¶28

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶29

_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶30

Dt: 09.03.2026 VTS

Kalamkuntla Ramachandra Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalamkuntla Ramachandra Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adapa Yesurani Vs Vangalapudi Chinna Babu

Sri. Mandapati Naga Manikanta Satya Siva Ramana Babu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Nelli Parvathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Mallikharjuna Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Chalasani Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Satri Anitha @ Swathi Priya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh