kg IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA Ij/m W MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MARCH FIVE the HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 1131 OF 2024 CRIMINAL RFVISION CA<tF Mr.- Revision (filed under Section . of Cr.P.C.. praying that in the cii 438 & 442 of BNSS) under Section 397/401 of«. c™™, Ro.,.rc““r„,r"™ ' allow the Criminal Revision in may be pleased to ^^se by setting aside the ^024 passed in CrI.M.P.No. 139/2024 i Judge for Trial of Offences order dated 05-08- in S.C.No. 52/2023 by. the Special against Woman Cum V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram iin the interest of justice Between: Pachipenta Balaram, S/o. Venkata Merakamudidam Mandal, rao. Aged 42 years, R/o.Yadika Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District. Village ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/A3 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Coud Nelapadu,Amravathi, Guntur District. High Court ofAP, -RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the attendance of the petitioner in S.C.No.52/2023 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Woman Cum V Addl. District and Sessions Judge Vizianagaram, pending disposal of the CrI.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S V R SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: 'i pi 0498372024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1131/2024 Between: PACHIPENTA BALARAM, S/0. VENKATA RAO, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O.YADIKA VILLAGE, MERAKAMUDIDAM MANDAL, CHEEPURUPALLI, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP, NELAPADU, AMRAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S V R SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Impugning the Order dated 05.08.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.139 of 2024 in S.C.No.52 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of offences against Women-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant. Heard Sri S.V.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent/State. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner complainant on 27.05.2022 lodged which, there is Petitioner/Accused No.3. would submit that the de facto a report against Accused Nos.1 and 2 in no reference with regard to the involvement of However, another report dated 30.06.2022 was given by the de facto complainant alleging some accusations against the not find place in the earlier report. Learned no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 to connect him with the alleged crime. It is submitted assigned by the learned trial Judge while dismissing petition for discharge of the Petitioner i prayed to set aside the impugned order. Petitioner/Accused No.3, which do counsel would further submit that. that the reason the IS untenable and unsustainable. Hence 4. Contrasting the same, learned Assistant submit that, in the earlier report, the de facto Public Prosecutor would complainant mentioned about the presence of another person along with Accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of the alleged offence. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that, on coming to know the Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein, she lodged specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused Judge has rightly dismissed the discharge petition. name of the third person, who is the another report. In the view of the No.3, the learned trial There are no grounds to interfere with the said order passed by the learned trial Judge. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. It is apposite to refer the judgement of Hon’ble Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ann Supreme Court in K. (SLP (CrI.) No.2029 of 2018, decided on August 29, 2024) with respect to Scope of Revision Court jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., wherein it was held as follows: while exercising 10. Thus, the scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that sub-section 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of Revision, even the powers under sub section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law. or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored orJudicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. ..." (Emphasis supplied) 6. As seen from the report dated 25.07.2022 lodged by the de facto complainant, admittedly, there is no mention of the name of the Petitioner/Accused No.3. However, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, the contents of the said report would show that along with Accused Nos.1 and 2, another person was also present in the room of Maruthi Lodge on 03.05.2022 and then Accused No.1 committed rape on her and the same I was videographed by Accused No.2. Whereas, in the second report dated 30.06.2022, the name of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 was specifically mentioned as the person who joined with Accused Nos.1 and 2 from the beginning and that Accused No.3 used to send Accused Nos.1 for obtaining her phone number and that by giving threat to the life of her and 2 to her husband and children, they made her ot go ot the house of Petitioner/Accused No.3 on the relevant date, wherein. Accused No.3 Subsequent to the said incident committed rape on her. again they made her to visit Vizianagaram Kota and later to Maruthi Lodge and there Accused No.1 committed rape on 4 her, which was videographed by Accused No.2. Further, Section statements of the victim and other witnesses also disclose specific allegation against the Petitioner/Accused No.3. In view of the specific 161 Cr.P.C 7. overt acts attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the petition for his discharge on the ground that it was not the stage to go into the merits of the case and to decide the genuineness of the contents of both the reports. There are no infirmities or illegalities found in the Order passed by the learned trial Judge. The Order of the learned trial Judge is well-reasoned and hence, there are no tenable grounds to interfere with the said Order, criminal revision case lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The 8. SD/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Woman Cum- V- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram [with records if any] 2. One CC to SRI S.V R SUBRAHMANYAM, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati Pradesh at at SM Li' HIGH COURT DATED: 10/03/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1131 of 2024 ^ 2 3 JUL 2025 j iM^yrrentS^o ''■^sseaifiBL Co 21^ DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE