Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37476 (AP)

R.KIRANMAI & 2 OTHERS v. THE S.H.O., BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM P.S. & 3 OTHERS

CRLRC/2033/2011 · 2025-03-07

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010644072011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2033/2011 Between: 1. R.KIRANMAI & 2 OTHERS, D/O. R.BALAJI CHANDRASEKHAR CHOWDARY, MINORS 2. R.SPANDANA,, D/O. R.BALAJI CHANDRASEKHAR CHOWDARY, MINORS 3. R.SANDEEP CHOWDARY,, D/O. R.BALAJI CHANDRASEKHAR CHOWDARY, PETITIONER 1 TO 3 ARE IN MINORS, REPTD., BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER BY NAME R.RADHA, W/O. R.BALAJI CHANDRA SEKHAR CHOWDARY, ALL ARE R/O. D.NO: 10-40, KAMMA STREET, YADIKI VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE S H O BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM P S 3 OTHERS, BAKKARAYASAMUDRAM POLICE STATION. 2. THE THASILDAR, YADIKI MANDAL, YADIKI. 3. R BALAJI CHANDRASEKHAR CHOWDARY, S/O. R.VENKATA RAMAIAH, R/O. YADIKI VILLAGE & MANDAL, YADIKI. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 2 1. SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: Sri Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel representing Sri Seshadri Golla, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondent No.3 who was accused in S.C.No.590 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapur, was passed away. The revision was filed challenging the order passed under Section 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which order permitted the learned Tahsildar, Yadiki to proceed with the auction against the property belonging to the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3, who were minors by that time. It is further represented that the Sessions Case itself was disposed of by way of acquitting the Respondent No.3, who died later. Therefore, it is submitted that the Criminal Revision Case has become infructuous. Recording the above submissions, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 07.03.2025 VTS