Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 44461 (AP)

S.SAIRA BEGUM v. STATE OF A.P., & ANOTHER

CRLRC/1077/2017 · 2025-12-23

T Mallikarjuna Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010483842017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1077/2017 Between: 1. S.SAIRA BEGUM, - ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF A P ANOTHER, - ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 O R D E R 1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the order dated 15.11.2016 passed in C.F.R.No.1154 of 2014 on the file of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. The C.F.R.No.1154 of 2014 has been filed by the 2nd Respondent/Complainant, seeking to take cognizance against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. By impugned order dated 15.11.2016, the trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner/accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequent to the passing of the order, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence and assigned as C.C.No.614 of 2016 and placed on record a copy of the order, which shows that the complaint was dismissed for default on 15.06.2017. He further submits that the cheque number, amount, and the names of the parties correspond with the particulars reflected in the order passed in C.C. No. 614 of 2016. 5. On being satisfied with the material placed on record that the complaint in C.C.No.614 of 2016 has already been disposed of, this Court finds the cause does not survive for adjudication and the matter would become infructuous. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 24.12.2025 SR 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1077 of 2017 Date: 24.12.2025 SR