APHC010379012009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 294/2009 Between: 1. SANGAPALLI HEMACHANDRA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARALU, R/O. RUNNING ROOM CENTRE, TADEPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GADDAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER, S/O. MOULA SAHEB, GATEMAN, S.C.RAILWAY KONDAPROLU RAILWAY STATION, KONDAPROLU VILLAGE AND POST, DAMACHERLA MANDAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto setasidethe cheque of Rs.90,000/- issued by the 1st Respondent/ Accused was dishonoured and CC.No. 4 of 2007 was filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 388 OF 2009 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 to fix an early date of hearing of the Criminal Revision Case filed against order 2 dated 27.1.2009 in CC.No. 4 of 2007 (Old CC.No. 330/2003) on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RACHURI LAKSHMIKAR 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. P MOHAN RAO 3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 294/2009 The Court made the following: Today, the matter is posted under the heading “for dismissal.” 2. The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the impugned order dated 27.01.2009. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that none represented on behalf of the petitioner and for non-compliance under Section 235 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was not regularly appearing before this Court. Accordingly, this Court has posted the matter for dismissal. 3. At this juncture, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor placed on record a petition filed by the prosecution to withdraw. It is contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has informed the Station House Officer, Tadepalli Police Station, that he wants to withdraw the Criminal Revision Case. The annexure to the report also shows that a statement of the present petitioner was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadepalli Police Station. The statement in Telugu vernacular language has also been perused, along with the petition submitted by the Station House Officer, Tadepalli Police Station. 4 4. Considering the situation, it appears that the petitioner does not wish to proceed with this matter. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. The petition filed by the Station House Officer, Tadepalli Police Station, is taken on record. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:27.04.2026 SSA