APHC010495712016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1010/2016 Between: 1. M. NAGALAXMI, KURNOOL DIST., WIFE OF SIVA SHANKAR REDDY, AGED 36 YEARS, VADDEMANU VILLAGE, NANDIKOTKUR MANDAL, KARNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. P P HYD ANO, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD 2. K SWAROOPA RANI, WIFE OF HARISCHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RIO BRAHMIN STREET, PATTIKONDA V & M, KARNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased topleased to allow the present Revision Petition and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2785/2014 in C.C.No.71/2011, dated 14.03.2016, on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Pattikonda, Kurnool District and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 1480 OF 2016 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.71 of 2011 on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Pattikonda, Kurnool District pending disposal of the above Cr.l.R.C. and to pass such othe: order or orders as this IA NO: 2 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 3788 OF 2016 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 vacate the interim stay granted in Crl.RC.No.1010/2016 dated 08.06.2016 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1010/2016 ORDER Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda in Crl.M.P.No.2785 of 2014 in CC.C.No.71 of 2011 wherein he allowed an application of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 318 of Criminal Procedure Code and added the present petitioner as Accused No.3 in the Calendar case. 2. In pursuance to the direction of this court dated 13.10.2025, learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda has sent a report contending inter alia that the Calendar Case against Accused No.1 and 2 was disposed of by pronouncement of Judgment, wherein the learned Magistrate found not guilty the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition act. 3. However, the instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against an order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code. 4. None appears on behalf of the petitioner. 5. The de-facto complainant represented though learned counsel M.Karthik, representing Mr J.Janikirama Rao. 6. On perusing the entire matter, it appears that Accused No.1 and 2 are alleged to be the principal offenders by the de-facto complainant / victim lady. It has been alleged therein that Accused No.3 being the relative of the husband, has also took part for demanding dowry along with Accused No.1 and 2. It appears that Accused No.1 and 2 have faced the trial, while the instant Criminal Revision was pending. After completion of the trial, learned Magistrate concerned has held that Accused No.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offences charged with. 7. Considering the entire matter, I find no justification to deal with the illegality and impropriety of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. Even if the impugned order became effective, that shall not change the finding of the learned Court below. 9. Considering the same, I find no just reason to proceed further with the instant Criminal Revision Case. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. 11. Consequently, pending miscellaneous application, if any shall stands closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA 140 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1010/2016 Dated: 19.11.2025. KS1