Dismissed

Chevuri Swarna Latha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026CRLRC/66/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the dismissal of a criminal appeal for default. The petitioner failed to serve respondents 2-5 and pay process fees for over six years, demonstrating a lack of bona fides. The court also found no merit on the facts, holding the impugned order free from jurisdictional error or perversity. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications were closed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

Chevuri Swarna Latha Vs State of Andhra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010448792019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 66/2020

¶9

Between:

¶10

CHEVURI SWARNA LATHA, , W/O SHAIK GHOUSE BASHA, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. SARVEPALLI KALUVA KATTA HARANADHAPURAM, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI

¶14

SHAIK GHOUSE BASHA, S/O. SANAVULLA, AGE 35 YEARS,

¶15

SHAIK SANAVULLA, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED 60 YEARS,

¶16

SHAIK RAHAMATUNNISA, W/O. SANAVULLA, AGED 55 YEARS,

¶17

SHAIK PARVIN, W/O. NAYAB RASOOL, AGED 37 YEARS, (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ALL RESIDING AT ATMAKURU TOWN AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.)

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.D V S LOKESWARA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.,’), challenging the order of dismissal passed in C.F.No.7092 of 2018 in Crl.M.P.No.1602 of 2018 in the unnumbered Criminal Appeal on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore. The said petition was preferred invoking the provisions analogous to Order IX Rule 9 of ‘the C.P.C.,’ seeking restoration of Crl.M.P.No.1602 of 2018, which had earlier come to be dismissed for default on 10.08.2018 owing to the failure of the Petitioner to comply with the procedural requirement of payment of batta/process fee.

¶28

A careful scrutiny of the record reveals a persistent lack of diligence and prosecutorial seriousness on the part of the Petitioner. The revision has remained pending for an inordinately long period and forms part of one of the oldest matters on the roster of this Court. Notwithstanding the efflux of more than six years, the Petitioner has failed to take due notice on Respondent Nos.2 to 5. Such prolonged inaction unmistakably demonstrates a want of bona fides and reflects a complete disregard for the orderly administration of justice and the procedural mandates governing criminal proceedings.

¶29

Apart from the aforementioned procedural lapses, this Court has also examined the matter on merits. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds no legally sustainable ground

¶30

¶31

warranting interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, patent illegality, material irregularity, or manifest perversity.

¶32

Accordingly, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed and is, therefore, dismissed not only on account of the Petitioner’s continued failure to pay the requisite process fee, but also on the independent ground that the revision is utterly devoid of

¶33

merit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

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

¶35

_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶36

Dt: 10.09.2026 VTS

Chevuri Swarna Latha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chevuri Swarna Latha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases