APHC010315282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 689/2025 Between: 1.GSR LIFE STYLES, REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR GUMMULURI SRINIVASA RAO S/O SREE RAMA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED 52 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O H.NO. 8-15/B, STREET NO.5, HEMA NAGAR, UPPAL, HYDERABAD 2.GUMMULURI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O SREE RAMA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED 52 YEARS BUSINESS, R/O H.NO. 8-15/B, STREET NO.5, HEMA NAGAR, UPPAL, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.MIRIYALA VENKATA MURALI KRISHNA, S/O SAMBA SIVA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. PROPERTIES AND BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 22/76, BANK STREET, NUZVID TOWN AND MANDAL 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.BASAVARAJU SAI PRANEETH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 2.J.V.PHANIDUTH The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 challenging the interlocutory order dated 11.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2024 in C.C.No.119 of 2023 passed by the learned Special Magistrate, Nuzvid. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. The order impugned is dated 11.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2024 in C.C.No.119 of 2023 passed by the learned Special Magistrate, Nuzvid whereby and whereunder an application filed under 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was allowed. Aggrieved by that order the Accused/Petitioners have preferred the Revision Case. 4. Indeed, a revision against interlocutory order is not maintainable as per Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The order impugned is undoubtedly an interim order. It has merely allowed an application filed for receiving certain documents from electronic device from the complainant/Petitioner. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam2, Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd.3, Girish Kumar Suneja v. 1 the BNSS 2 (2009) 5 SCC 153 3 (2001) 7 SCC 401 3 CBI4, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana5, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that receiving of documents, summoning of the witnesses are all interlocutory in nature and against which no revision case is maintainable. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sethuraman, Bhaskar Industries Ltd., Girish Kumar Suneja, Amar Nath supra the Criminal Revision case is not maintainable. 7. Hence, the Criminal Revisional Case is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 16.10.2025 VTS 4 (2017) 14 SCC 809 5 (1977) 4 SCC 137