Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32349 (AP)

NAKKA SURESH KUMAR, VISAKHAPATNAM., v. STATE OF AP., REP PP AND ANR.,

CRLRC/403/2015 · 2025-09-14

T Mallikarjuna Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010475882015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 403/2015 Between: 1. NAKKA SURESH KUMAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, S/O NARASAYYA, R/O D.NO.49-53-7/16, GROUND FLOOR, BALAYYA SASTY LAYOUT, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP REP PP AND ANR, REPT.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, HYDERABAD. 2. GUDIMETLA RAJAREDDY, S/O AMIIREDDY, R/O D.NO.48-1-35, SRINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 set aside the order dated 24.02.2015 in CrI.M.P.No.619 of 2015 in C.C.No.511 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate cum Excise Court at Visakhapatnam and allow the petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 649 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 of all further proceedings in C.C.No.511 of 2010 on the file of the Court of 2 the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate cum Excise Court at Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of Criminal Revision Case and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 2 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 12887 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SHANMUKHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is preferred on behalf of the petitioner/accused challenging the order dated 24.02.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.619 of 2015 in Calendar Case No.511 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Excise Court, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). By the said order, the Trial Court dismissed the petition filed under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send Ex.P2 cheque to a hand writing expert for comparison with the hand writings of accused. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner / accused. 3. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 2nd respondent / State, contends that as per E-courts report, Calendar Case No.511 of 2010, wherein the order dated 24.02.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.619 of 2015 was passed, was finally disposed as withdrawn before the Trial Court on 07.08.2017. He further contends that, in view of the dismissal of the main case, the present Criminal Revision directed against the said interlocutory 3 order no longer survives for independent adjudication and has, therefore, become infructuous. 4. 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 already stands disposed, is of the considered view that nothing further remains for determination 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 lost its relevance, and adjudicating the present Criminal Revision Case would serve no useful purpose. 5. 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 Date: 15.09.2025 S A K 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.403 of 2015 Date: 15.09.2025 S A K 165