APHC010663922013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1144/2013 Between: 1. VEERPURI VASUNDHARA, W/O V.AJAY BABU D/O KOTHAPALLI SMABSIVA RAO HINDU PARENTS PROTECTIN R/O BHAGYANAGAR 3RD LANE, ONGOLE PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. VEERPURI AJAY BABU ANOTHER, S/O NAGAIAH HINDU WORKING AT STENO, REGANAYAKULU STREET PUDIPET, BACK SIDE OF CHITRA THEATRE, CHENNAI 2. STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP., HYDERABAD ...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 toto setaside the Judgment in MC No. 2 / 2010 dt 11-08-2012 Family Court III Addl.District Judge, FTC, ongole IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 1292 OF 2013 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 2 condone the delay of 155 days in representing the Crl.RCSR No.29655 of 2012 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1144 of 2013 ORDER: No representation on either side. 2. On 02.07.2025, this Court directed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Prakasam District, directing him to secure the presence of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 who are the parties in M.C.No.12 of 2010 and record their statements. 3. Report received from the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Prakasam District, which shows that, notice sent to both the parties were returned with an postal endorsement “insufficient address and no such persons.” 4. Considering the material on record, it establishes that both parties are not evincing interest to come forward for disposal of the matter. Despite the best efforts made, address particulars of both the parties could not be traced out. 5. In the said facts of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed for non prosecution. No order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 26.09.2025 SCH 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1144 of 2013 Date: 26.09.2025 SCH 88