Dismissed¶29

Kothuru Srinivasulu Achari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2026CRLRC/239/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Observing that the warrant issued pursuant to the impugned order was executable by 22.01.2026 and the matter had come up before the Court on 05.03.2026, the Court found no grounds warranting interference with the impugned order. ¶28

Kothuru Srinivasulu Achari Vs The State of… — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010111672026

¶2

[3396]

¶3

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

¶4

THURSD A Y,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO T HOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 239/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

KOTHURU SRINIV A SULU ACHARI, S/O. K.JAGAN MOHAN ACHARI,AGE 40 Y EARS, R/O. D.NO.10/451,LAKSHMI NAGAR, RAILWAY KODURU A NNAMARIA DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIG H COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.

¶12

SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD, SRI TOWERS, PLOT NO.1 4 A,SOUTH PHASE, INDUSTRI A L ESTATE,GUINDY, CHENNAI AN D BRANCH OFFICE AT RAILWA Y KODURU BRANCH,KADAPA DISTRI C TREP.BY ITS AUTHORIS E D OFFICER/POWER OFA T TORNEY, M.GANGADHARA.

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t hat in the circumstances stated i n the affidavit filed in suppor t of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased to plea s ed to Set aside the order dt. 12-12-2 0 25 passed in CrI.M.P No. 466 of 2025 in CFR No. 1050 of 2025 on the file of the court of Chief Judicial Magistr a te - cum - Principal Assistant sessi o ns Judge, Kadapa, in the interest of Justice, in pending disposal of main C riminal Revision petition and pass

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶16

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 pleased to Suspend the docket order dt. 12-12- 2025 passed in CrI.M.P No. 466 of 2025 in CFR No. 1050 of 2025 on the file of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate - Cum -Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadapa, and pass

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.CHEVURI RAMA SWAMY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶20

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 239/2026

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 12.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.466 of 2025 in CFR No.1050 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate–cum–Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

¶25

Heard Sri Ch.Ramaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal and irregular. He would further submit that the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from the 2^nd respondent company by depositing title deeds of the property and agreed to repay the same in 60 equated monthly installments. He would further submit that the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.14,46,101/- towards the loan, but the 2^nd respondent is claiming an excessive amount without properly giving credit to the payments made by the petitioner. He further submits that the 2^nd respondent filed the petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act without approaching the competent forum and that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

¶27

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order in accordance with law and that no interference is required. She prayed that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶28

As can be seen from the record, it appears that the warrant issued pursuant to the impugned order was executable by 22.01.2026. The present matter has come up before this Court on 05.03.2026. In view of the same, this Court does not find any grounds warranting interference with the impugned order.

¶29

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶30

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

¶31

this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶32

__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶33

Date: 05.03.2026. KKV

¶34

209

¶35

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA