Orugunta Sridhar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2026CRLP/5893/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court disposal of Criminal Petition 5893/2021; chargesheet not yet filed; liberty reserved to accused-petitioners to challenge chargesheet when filed; notice on respondent No. 2 (complainant) unserved for five years; no representation for petitioners; heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor; Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; 12.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Petitioners to challenge the chargesheet, in the event it is filed, through appropriate legal proceedings; pending interlocutory applications, if any, directed to stand closed. ¶¶27

Orugunta Sridhar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010399572021

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5893/2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

1.ORUGUNTA SRIDHAR,, S/O. LATE RAMAMURTHY, 42Y, R/O. 2ND FLOOR, 1-1-385/12/19/A, NEAR BACHPAN SCHOOL, GANDHI NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

¶10

2.ORUGUNTA SANKARAMMA,, W/O. LATE RAMAMURTHY, 65Y, R/O. 3-5-83, LAKSHMIPURAM, SETTYGUNTA ROAD, SAIBABA TEMPLE, NELLORE, A.P.

¶11

3.BOYAPATI SIRISHA, W/O. JANARDHAN, 48Y, R/O. 3-5-83, LAKSHMIPURAM, SETTYGUNTA ROAD, SAIBABA TEMPLE, NELLORE A.P.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI, A.P.

¶15

2.ORUGUNTA BHUVANESWARI, W/O. ORUGUNTA SRIDHAR, D/O. K. SAI RAM NAIDU, 34Y, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HOUSING CORPORATION, R/O. H.NO. 8-680, PLOT NO. 502, JK TOWERS, THOTAPALYAM, CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶18

1.SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶20

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶21

2.VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

No representation for the Petitioners. Notice on Respondent No.2 is not

¶25

served even after expiry of five years.

¶26

Heard Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Upon hearing learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of the material available before the Court, the matter did not require further adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioners to challenge the chargesheet, in the event it is filed, through appropriate legal proceedings.

¶28

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

¶29

_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶30

Dt: 12.02.2026 VTS

Orugunta Sridhar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Orugunta Sridhar, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devisetti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Jangala Sambasiva Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

V. Raghunath Vs The Union of India

Pennagadam Damodaram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.S.Ranjith Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kadiyam Satish Kumar Vs the State through Rep by Its Public Prosecutor