APHC010100572016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. VEMULA LAKSHMI DEVI, KURNOOL DIST. & 3 OTHRS, W/O PULLAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN 2. VEMULA MURALI KRISHNA, S/O PULLAIAH AGED 33 YEARS RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN 3. VEMULA PUSHPAVATHAMMA, W/O P RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN 4. VEMULA MAHESH KUMAR, S/O PULLAIAH, AGE RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN 1. P P HYD ANO, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2. SOYA CHINNA VENKATA RAMUDU, S/O BOY RANGANNA, AGED 49 YEARS RESIDENT 'OF RATNAPALLI VILLAGE., VELDURTHY MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1347/2016 VEMULA LAKSHMI DEVI, KURNOOL DIST. & 3 OTHRS, W/O PULLAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN VEMULA MURALI KRISHNA, S/O PULLAIAH AGED 33 YEARS RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN VEMULA PUSHPAVATHAMMA, W/O P-ULLAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN VEMULA MAHESH KUMAR, S/O PULLAIAH, AGED 38 YEARS RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN ...PETITIONER(S) AND ANO, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SOYA CHINNA VENKATA RAMUDU, S/O BOY RANGANNA, AGED 49 YEARS RESIDENT 'OF RATNAPALLI VILLAGE., VELDURTHY MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] MALLIKARJUNA RAO VEMULA LAKSHMI DEVI, KURNOOL DIST. & 3 OTHRS, W/O PULLAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL TOWN VEMULA MURALI KRISHNA, S/O PULLAIAH AGED 33 YEARS RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY ULLAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY D 38 YEARS RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 51/15A/16A RAJEEV NAGAR, BELLARY ...PETITIONER(S) ANO, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA SOYA CHINNA VENKATA RAMUDU, S/O BOY RANGANNA, AGED 49 YEARS RESIDENT 'OF RATNAPALLI VILLAGE., VELDURTHY ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., Aggrieved by the Order of the Judge, Family Court, Kurnool passed in CrI.R.P.No.57/2014, dated 02.09.2015 in set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, passed in C.C.No.76/2012, dated 25.8.2014, and in discharging Al to A4 U/Sec.245(1) of Cr.PC. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 589 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 condone the delay of 71 days in representing above criminal revision petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 716 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 dispense with filing of the certified copy of the order in CC No.76 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhone and be pleased to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 2015 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 stay all further proceedings passed in CC.No.76/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, Kurnool Dsitrict IA NO: 4 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 4170 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 suspension orders passed in cRl.RCMP.No.2015/2016 of Crl.RC.No.1347/2016 dated 20.06.2016 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. K RAJANNA 3 The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is preferred on behalf of the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 challenging the order dated 02.09.2015 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.57 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Kurnool (for short, ‘the Family Court’). 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in this Criminal Revision Case. 3. Before the Family Court, the 2nd respondent herein filed Criminal Revision Petition No.57 of 2014, under sections 397 and 399 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 25.08.2014 in C.C.No.76 of 2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). After considering the submissions of both parties, the learned Judge, Family Court set aside the order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.76 of 2012 and directed the learned Magistrate to frame the charge for the offence under section 420 of IPC against A.1 to A.4 and proceed with the trial. 4. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in Crl.R.P.No.57 of 2014, the petitioners (A.1 to A.4) herein has preferred the present Crl.R.C.No.1347 of 2016. 5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent / State, contends that as per the status report obtained from the E- courts portal, Calendar Case No.76 of 2012 was settled before the Lok Adalat on 20.04.2019. He further contends that, in light of the dismissal of the main case, the present Criminal Revision Case no longer survives for independent adjudication and has, therefore, become infructuous. 7. This Court, upon a careful consideration of the submission advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and in view of the fact that the 4 C.C.No.76 of 2012 was settled before the Lok Adalat on 20.04.2019, is of the considered view that nothing further to be adjudicated in the present Revision Case. Since the main case has been concluded and has attained finality, any challenge to an interlocutory order passed therein has lost its relevance, and adjudicating the present Criminal Revision Case would serve no useful purpose. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J sss Date: 14.10.2025 S A K 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1347 of 2016 Date: 14.10.2025 S A K 118