1 APHC010265322008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1014/2008 Between: 1. THOTA RAMANAIAH,, S/O. LAKSHMI NARASAIAH, BUSINESS, R/O. NETHA NAGAR, ZAKIR HUSSAIN NAGAR, NELLORE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BATHALA SUDHAKAR REDDY AND 4 OTHERS, S/O. RAMANA REDDY, LORRY OWNER , R/O. NETHA NAGAR, D.NO. 28/1/319, ZAKIR HUSSAIN NAGAR, 2. PAGADALA SURESH, S/O. LAKSHMI NAIDU, COOLI, R/O. NETHA NAGAR, D.NO. 28/1/319, ZAKIR HUSSAIN NAGAR, 3. MUKKU SRINIVASULU SEENU, S/O. VENKATAIAH, COOLIE, R/O. INDUPUR VILLAGE, NELLORE MANDAL AND DISTRICT, NOW RESIDNG AT D.NO. 3-1200/13, SETHYGUTE ROAD, 4. STATE BY SUB INSAPECTOR OF POLICE, NO .II TOWN POLICE STATION (L&O) NELLORE. 5. THE STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SRI RAMA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. P MOHAN RAO 3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:1014 OF 2008 ORDER: Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor placed on record a report of the Station House Officer, II Town (Nawabpeta) Police Station, Nellore contending inter alia that the whereabouts of the defacto complainant/petitioner have not been traced. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the instant criminal revision case has been filed by the defacto-complainant against the order of acquittal. The present respondents who are arraigned as accused before the learned Court below, though acquitted were roaming before this Court for long. 3. Considering the submissions and also considering the fact that the instant criminal revision case is pending since 2008 and that the petitioner is not appearing before this Court for long time and also taking note of the report of the concerned Station House Officer, it appears to me that the petitioner lost interest to proceed with the matter. 4. This criminal revision case cannot be disposed of without deciding the merits of the matter. 5. The instant criminal revision case has been filed against the order passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, dated 10.04.2008 in C.C.No.544 of 2002. Having perused the judgment as 4 well as the finding of the learned Magistrate, it appears that the findings of the learned Magistrate are relevant to the facts appeared before him and also in accordance with law. 6. Considering the facts, I find no justification to entertain the instant criminal revision case. The finding of the learned Magistrate regarding the order of acquittal in favour of the accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 3 appears to be correct and justified 7. With the above observation, the instant criminal revision is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDUSAMANTA, J 31.10.2025 Pmk 5 202 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Crl.R.C.No:1014 OF 2008 Date: 31.10.2025 Pmk