APHC010312622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 710/2025 Between: Shaik Mohammad Rafi ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PANGA SIVANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KODURU BUJJI BABU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to challenge the Order, dated 20.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.369 of 2024 in M.C.No.31 of 2019 on the file of Family-Cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 20.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 369 of 2024 in M.C. No. 31 of 2019, on the file of the Family-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, whereby the petition seeking condonation of a delay of 1138 days in setting aside the ex parte order dated 19.03.2020 was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing arguments, submitted that due to the horrendous situation caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner/husband was unable to file any application within the appropriate time seeking condonation of the delay of 1138 days. 5. Indeed, a delay of 1138 days is not an ordinary one, it amounts to nearly three years. However, in view of the fact that respondent No. 2 is a Government employee working as Panchayat Secretary Grade-VI (Digital Assistant), having joined service on 18.01.2021, and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Revision Case, subject to the imposition of costs. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has voluntarily submitted that an amount of Rs.10,000/- may be imposed as costs for allowing the petition. 3 However, this amount does not appear to be proportionate to the delay in filing the petition before the learned trial Court, particularly in light of the arrears payable by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 7. Accordingly, if an amount of Rs.20,000/- is imposed as costs for allowing the Criminal Revision Case, it would meet the ends of justice. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by condoning the delay of 1138 days in filing the Crl.M.P. before the learned trial Court, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.20,000/- to respondent No. 2 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Judgment. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 24.09.2025 S D P 4 142 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.710 of 2025 Date:24.09.2025 S D P