APHC010319472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6987 OF 2025 Between: Tikkala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Narayana, Aged about 45 years. Occ; Employee in Electricity Department, Jaggaiahpet Mandal Krishna District. R/o. Takkellapadu Village, ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, High Court buildings Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur District 2. Tikkala Narayana, S/o. Late Sri Ramulu, Takkellapadu Village, Jaggaiapet Mandal, Krishna District. 3. Tikkala Rangamma, W/o. Narayana, Aged 68 years, Occ House wife, R/o. Takkellapadu Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. at Aged 87 years, R/o. ...Respondents Petition filed under 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition , the High Court may be pleased to quash the Order dated 21.04.2025 in CRL.RC.No.86 of 2018 on the file XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama, confirming the order of maintenance dated 25.10.2018 in MC.No.25 of 2015 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet. iA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to order dated 21.04.2025 in CRL.RC.No.86of 2018 on the file XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. V Baby Rani Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: - The Court made the following order: fir APHC010319472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6987/2025 Between: 1.TIKKALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/0. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 000 EMPLOYEE IN ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, R/0. TAKKELLAPADU VILLAGE, JAGGAIAHPET MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE- STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS AT NELAPADU, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.TIKKALA NARAYANA, S/0. LATE SRI RAMULU, AGED 87 YEARS, R/O. TAKKELLAPADU VILLAGE, JAGGAIAPET MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.TIKKALA RANGAMMA, W/0. NARAYANA, AGED 68 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, JAGGAIAHPETMANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. R/O. TAKKELLAPADU VILLAGE, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VBABY RANI 2 Counsel for the Respondent/complainant{S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: I i 3 ORDER:- / Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2025 passed in Crl.R.C. No.86 of 2018 by the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 had filed M.C. No.25 of 2015 seeking maintenance from the petitioner, who is their son. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet, granted maintenance at the Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the petitioners therein. The petitioner filed a revision before the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, and the learned Judge, after elaborately considering the issue, dismissed the revision petition. 3. The present quash petition is filed on the ground that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous, and that the revisional power would lie with the higher courts to exercise their jurisdiction when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. rate of 4. Perused the record. Perused the orders. It is unfortunate that the petitioner has neglected his parents, the 2"'^ respondent is aged about 87 years, and the 3'^'^ respondent is aged about 68 years. On a query from the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though there from the Magistrate Court, no payment has been made till Court is not inclined to interfere with the well- was a direction date. Hence, this considered and well-reasoned 4 order passed by the learned XVi Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama. 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed Sd/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR fm/t-y SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District. 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. 3. One CC to M/s. V Baby Rani, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s td Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies GPC sree HIGH COURT DATED: 09/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 6987 OF 2025 DISMISSING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION