APHC010139382019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 509/2019 Between: K. SANJEEVA REDDY, S/O VENKAT SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS PRIVATE EMPLYEE RESIDENT OF BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER AND 1. SANIKOMMU VENGOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUDUMULAKUNTLA VILLAGE, H.M.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. SANIKOMMU SREENIVASULA REDDY, S/O SEETHARAMIREDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUDUMULAKUNTLA VILLAGE, H.M.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. SANIKOMMU VENKATA REDDY, S/O SEETHARAMIREDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUDUMULAKUNTLA VILLAGE, H.M.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. SANIKOMMU SEETHARAMIREDDY, S/O NARSIREDDY AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUDUMULAKUNTLA VILLAGE, H.M.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. SANIKOMMU OBULA REDDY, S/O SEETHARAMIREDDY AGED ABOUT 67YEARS RESIDENT OF KUDUMULAKUNTLA VILLAGE, H.M.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. UDUMULA THIRUPATHAIAH REDDY, S/O ROSI REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUDUMULAKUNTLA VILLAGE, H.M.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2 Crl.R.C.No.509 of 2019 7. SANIKOMMU CHINNA RAMAIAH, S/O VENGALREDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUDUMULAKUNTLA VILLAGE, H.M.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 8. GONTLA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O CHALAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUDUMULAKUNTLA VILLAGE, H.M.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 9. ANUMOLU VENKATAIAH, S/O VOKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUDUMULAKUNTLA VILLAGE, H.M.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 10.KANTI DANAIAH, S/O ISAQ AGED ABOUT 34YEARS RESIDENT OF KUDUMULAKUNTLA VILLAGE, H.M.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 11.KATHI PETHURU, S/O ISAQ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUDUMULAKUNTLA VILLAGE, H.M.PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 12.SANIKOMMU SREENIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE POLIREDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BUSINESS PROFESSION, D.NO 8-7/8-1-300, DEVADAS STREE, KOTHAPETA, KANIGIRI TOWN AND MANDAL 13.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.T V P SAI VIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.G VIJAYA SARADHI 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 Crl.R.C.No.509 of 2019 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) challenging the order dated 22.01.2019 passed in C.F.R.No.1216 of 2016 in Crime No.25 of 2015. 2. No representation for the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.1 to 12. Case is of the year 2019, one of the oldest cases. Hence, Sri C.Karthik, learned Counsel is appointed as learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Priyanka, learned Counsel is appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 12. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to issue necessary orders in this regard. 3. Heard both the learned Legal Aid Counsel and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. I have perused the record. The petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 190 read with 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C’., alleging that the respondent Nos.1 to 12 had committed certain offences punishable under Sections 141, 188, 447 and 435 read with 34 of ‘the IPC’. Learned Trial Court declined to take cognizance of the offences for the above mentioned alleged offences and dismissed the complaint without costs. 5. It is the allegation of the petitioner/complainant that respondent Nos.1 to 12 committed trespass into his land in violation of the injunction order passed in I.A.No.104 of 2015 in O.S.No.147 of 2015 and cut and burnt the Palmyra trees. Had the respondents/accused willfully violated the injunction order, the petitioner ought to have taken appropriate steps in the pending civil suit by initiating proceedings for violation of the injunction and by seeking recovery of 4 Crl.R.C.No.509 of 2019 damages. As there was a civil dispute very much pending in between the parties, taking recourse of the penal provisions is not justified. 6. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that the petitioner failed to file any documentary evidence to establish his right, title or possession over the disputed property. Except the bald allegations, no evidence whatsoever, not even photographs, was produced to substantiate the allegation regarding destruction of Palmyra trees or the loss allegedly caused to the petitioner. 7. Further, the petitioner had not lodged any report in respect of the alleged incident before the concerned Station House Officer. He did not place any material on record to show that he had submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police upon inaction by the concerned S.H.O, prior to filing the private complaint. There are no material irregularities. There was no flagrant miscarriage of justice. There are no merits in the case. Hence, the revision case is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 20.12.2025 SAB / JLSR 5 Crl.R.C.No.509 of 2019 191 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE.No.509 of 2019 Date:20.12.2025 SAB / JLSR