APHC010559522024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9011/2024 Between: Smt Padala Anupama ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HN, J Crl.P.No.9011_2024 2 The Court made the following Order: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the XI Additional District Judge and Session Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, in Criminal Revision Petition No.35 of 2023, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem, in Cr.M.P.No.84 of 2023 in C.C.No.210 of 2015. The application was filed for recalling and reopening the evidence and to record the statement of the Executive Officer of Sri Kesava Swamy Vari Temple, who discharged the role of Executive Officer during the year 2013. 3. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on 31.07.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.84 of 2023. The learned Magistrate held that the prosecution intended to adduce evidence with regard to the offence under Section 495 of the IPC, while, on the other hand, the prosecution also intended to adduce evidence to disprove the marriage between the 1st accused and the 5th accused. HN, J Crl.P.No.9011_2024 3 4. Considering the same and also taking into account that petitions with similar prayers were dismissed by the Court, and that the de facto complainant had not preferred any appeals against the orders, the Court found it appropriate to dismiss the petition. It was also categorically recorded in the order that Mr. B. Narayana Rao, was the then Executive Officer of Sri Kesava Swamy Vari Temple, not Sri K.N.V.D.V.Prasad (the proposed witness), and examining the proposed witness would be of no consequence to the merits of the case. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, but the learned Judge dismissed the petition. At paragraph 16 of the order, the learned District Judge categorically held that the photocopy of the receipt was not believed by the Trial Court and that no proper explanation had been offered by the petitioner/de facto complainant for possession of a photocopy. The District Judge also recorded that the proposed evidence would be contra to the evidence already adduced by the prosecution to prove the offence under Section 495 of the IPC. 6. It was further recorded by the learned District Judge that the petitioner had now filed four criminal miscellaneous petitions when HN, J Crl.P.No.9011_2024 4 the matter was coming up for the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C (Section 278 of the BNSS). 7. Considering the belated stage at which the petitioner intends to adduce the additional evidence, which was previously rejected by the Court through the prosecution, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem. 8. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 18.03.2025 NKA HN, J Crl.P.No.9011_2024 5 450 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.9011 of 2024 Date: 18.03.2025 NKA