Dismissed¶27

Temburu Kurma Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC4 May 2026CRLP/9613/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P. 9613 of 2024; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; order dated 05.05.2026; dismissal as abated due to death of Accused No.1 Temburu Kurma Rao; permission to withdraw by Accused Nos. 2 and 3 Temburu Chiranjeevulu and Ratti Adilakshmi; complainant Temburu Vijaya Lakshmi; Srikakulam Rural Police Station; counsel Challa Ajay Kumar; Public Prosecutor for State of AP; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed as abated against deceased petitioner No.1/Accused No.1; permission granted and Criminal Petition dismissed as withdrawn against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3/Accused Nos. 2 and 3; pending Miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶27

Temburu Kurma Rao Vs the State of Ap — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Petition against petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, reported by learned counsel to be deceased, stands dismissed as abated. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

On the submission that petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 (Temburu Kurma Rao) is no more, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed as abated against him.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The Court accorded permission to withdraw the Criminal Petition insofar as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned.

¶26

Key takeaways

The Criminal Petition is dismissed as withdrawn insofar as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned.ratio¶27
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Amaravati, Special Original Jurisdiction), Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, disposed of Criminal Petition No. 9613 of 2024 on 05.05.2026. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, Temburu Kurma Rao, S/o. Chandrayya, is no more; the Criminal Petition accordingly stood dismissed as abated against him. Learned counsel further sought permission to withdraw the Criminal Petition insofar as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Temburu Chiranjeevulu and Ratti Adilakshmi) were concerned; permission was accorded and the Criminal Petition was dismissed as withdrawn against them. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed. Respondents: the State of AP through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi, via the Station House Officer, Srikakulam Rural Police Station, and complainant Temburu Vijaya Lakshmi. Counsel: Challa Ajay Kumar for petitioners; Public Prosecutor for respondents. No statutory provision or precedent was cited in the order.

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010593972024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9613/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

TEMBURU KURMA RAO, S/O CHANDRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, R/O BANKERS COLONY PATHAPATNAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

TEMBURU CHIRANJEEVULU,, S/O CHANDRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O TURAKA SASANAM VILLAGE, SOMPETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

RATTI ADILAKSHMI,, W/O CHIRANJEEVULU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O TURAKA SASANAM VILLAGE SOMPETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM RURAL POLICE STATION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

TEMBURU VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O KURMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD DUTIES, R/O VOPPANGI VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶18

CHALLA AJAY KUMAR

¶19

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶21

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, namely, Temburu Kurma Rao, S/o.Chandrayya, is no more. Hence, the Criminal Petition against petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 stands dismissed as abated.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners further seeks permission to withdraw the Criminal Petition insofar as petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned.

¶26

Permission is accorded.

¶27

In view of the above submissions, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as withdrawn insofar as petitioner Nos.2 and 3/Accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned.

¶28

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶29

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Date: 05.05.2026

RSI

265

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶35

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9613 of 2024

¶36

Date: 05.05.2026

¶37

RSI

Temburu Kurma Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Temburu Kurma Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moganti Ganesh Lakshmana Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The Indian Cement Limited Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Manchineni Surendranath Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Desu Vijaya Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt N.Sreeja, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Battula Gangaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh