1 APHC010430212015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1752/2015 Between: 1. B.SUBBARAYUDU, S/O B.NAGA MALLESU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.8/175-1 SAIPETA, KADAPA CITY YSR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. ANDRA SAVITRI, W/O VENKATA NAIDU, AGED 39 YEARS RESIDENTS OF KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE NEAR KSRM COLLEGE, C.K.DINNE MANDAL, KADAPA YSR DISTRICT . 3. A VENKATA NAIDU, S/O PEDDA SOMAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS RESIDENTS OF KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE NEAR KSRM COLLEGE, C.K.DINNE MANDAL, KADAPA YSR DISTRICT. 4. SHAIK BABA FAKRUDDIN, S/O ANTHAR. SAB, AGED 33 YEARS RESIDENTS OF KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE NEAR KSRM COLLEGE, C.K.DINNE MANDAL, KADAPA YSR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., aggrieved by the orders of the learned Hon'ble Special Judicial 2 Magistrate of First Class for Excise and Prohibition Kadapa passed in Crl.M.P.No.67/2015 in C.C.No.99/2010 dated 07.07.2015. IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 2779 OF 2015 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 stay all further proceedings passed in C.C.No.99/2010 dated 7.7.2015 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise and Prohibition Kadapa pending disposal of the petition and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is preferred on behalf of the petitioner/complainant challenging the order dated 07.07.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.67 of 2015 in C.C.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa, (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in this Criminal Revision Case. 3. It is evident from the record that respondents 2 to 4 herein (A.1, A.2, and A.10) filed Crl.M.P.No.67 of 2015 in C.C.No.99 of 2010 under Section 245(1) of the Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge from the case. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, allowed the petition on 07.07.2015 and accordingly discharged respondents 2 to 4 (A.1, A.2, and A.10) from the case. 3 4. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.67 of 2015 in C.C.No.99 of 2010, the petitioner herein (complainant) has preferred the present Crl.R.C.No.1752 of 2015. 5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent / State, contends that as per the status report obtained from the E- courts portal, Calendar Case No.99 of 2010, in which the order dated 07.07.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.67 of 2015 was passed, was finally disposed of as uncontested before the Trial Court on 18.05.2016. He further contends that, in view of the dismissal of the main case, the present Criminal Revision, directed against the said interlocutory order, no longer survives for independent adjudication and has, therefore, become infructuous. 7. This Court, upon a careful consideration of the submission advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and having regard to the fact that the very Calendar Case in which the impugned order was passed has already been disposed of, is of the considered view that nothing further remains for adjudication in the present Revision Case. Since the main case has been concluded and has attained finality, any challenge to an interlocutory order passed therein has become infructuous, and proceeding with the present Criminal Revision Case would serve no useful purpose. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J sss Date: 22.09.2025 S A K 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1752 of 2015 Date: 22.09.2025 S A K 174