The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. The court held that the cause of the revision had become infructuous and did not survive for adjudication.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HICH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANCANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TI^ENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMII
Criminal Revision Case No. 1596 of 2018
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C., seeking to seta-side the order dated 30.10.2017 in Cr1.M.P.No.2355 of 2009 in M.C.No.10 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate oflst Class, Tekkali.
Between:
|aminivalasaChiranjeevulu,S/o. Dandasi,aged about 46years, R/o.Dharmalakshmipuram Village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner/Respondent.
AND
...Respondents.
IA NO: 2OF 2018
Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 108 days in presenting the Criminal Revision case in the interest ofjustice.
IA NO:1OF 2018
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2355 of 2009 in M.C.No.l0 ot 2006 dated 30-10-2017 on the file of |udicial First Class Magistrate, Tekkali pending revision.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.RamachandraReddy.
Counsel for the Respondent No.1:The Public Prosecutor. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2to 4: None apPears.
The Court made the following:ORDER
,/
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL RE\ISION CAS,E No.1596 OF 2018
ORDER:
This petition, under Section 397 U.4Ol of the Code of Giminal Procedure (for shor the 'Crp.C),, has been filed by rhe Accused with a prayer seeking to set-asiCe the order dated 3O.lO.2Ol7 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2355 of 2009 in ll.CNo.lO of 2006 on rhe file of the leamed Judicial first Class Magisrrate at Tekkali.
Heard.
Leamed counsel for the petitionr:r submits that the cause in the petition has become infructuous.
Fhving regard to the submiss ron and as the cause in the petition does not survives for adjudica"tion, this petition is dismissed as infructuots.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous peririons, if any, stand
closed.
sdl- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR / /rRUECoPy/ /
CD
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1 The Judicial Magistrate oflst Ciass,'fekkali. 2.) One CC to Sri G.Ramachandra Red,ly, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad loPUCl.
HIGHCOURT
DATED:14/09/2023
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1596 of 2018
1Y ,; 'l TATF a
7
.) [z ilot ?frn i
* ,
Dismissing the Criminal Revision as infruchrous.
*r " tr<sup>\0
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision petition should be dismissed as infructuous when admitted that there was no effective remedy left to pursue the underlying matter.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jaminivalasa Chiranjeevulu
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Jaminivalasa Sudha
Jaminivalasa Krishnakanth
Jaminivalasa Gowthami
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
