D.M.RAJESWAR RAO, VISAKAPATNAM & 6 OTHRS., v. STATE, REP SHO, III TOWN PS., VISAKAPATNAM -PP.,
CRLRC/488/2013 · 2025-09-22
T Mallikarjuna Rao
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5556 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5556 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010046972013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 488 OF 2013 Between:
1. D.M.RAJESWAR RAO, S/O. D.KANTHAYA, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT. D.NO. 53-38-29/2, KRM COLONY, NEAR CHANDANA BROTHERS HOUSE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
2. SMT. D.VICTORIA VIJAYA KUMARI, W/O. D.M.RAJESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT. D.NO. 53-38-29/2, KRM COLONY, NEAR CHANDANA BROTHERS HOUSE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. SRI D.UMA RAVI KANTH, S/O. D.M.RAJESWARA RAO, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT. D.NO. 53-38-29/2, KRM COLONY, NEAR CHANDANA BROTHERS HOUSE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. SMT. D.CHANDRA KUMARI, W/O. D.UMA RAVI KANTH, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT. D.NO. 53-38-29/2, KRM COLONY, NEAR CHANDANA BROTHERS HOUSE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
5. D.SANTHI SUNEELA, W/O. D.RAMESH KUMAR, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT. D.NO. 53-38-29/2, KRM COLONY, NEAR CHANDANA BROTHERS HOUSE, VISAKHAPATNAM.
6. RAJA KUMARI, W/O. PRAKASH BENHUR, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 102, SAROJA SHERATORN, PLOT NO. MIG 246, SEETHARAMMADHAR, NORTH EXTENSIONS, LAYOUT, VISAKHAPATNAM - 13.
2
7. PRAKASH BENHUR, S/O. BHASKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 102, SAROJA SHERATORN, PLOT NO. MIG 246, SEETHARAMMADHAR, NORTH EXTENSIONS, LAYOUT, VISAKHAPATNAM - 13
...PETITIONERS AND
1. STATE REP. BY SHO III TOWN PS, VISAKAPATNAM, BEING REP.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.
...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in Crl.MP.No. 11306 of 2012 in C.C.No. 1061 of 2010 on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, examine the same and set aside the
order dated 27-12-2012.
IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP 753 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 stay all further proceedings in C.C.No. 1061 of 2010, pending on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the Crl.Rc. Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. N (P) ANJANA DEVI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SRI K. SANDEEP, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. The Court made the following:
O R D E R
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the
Order dated 27.12.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.11306 of 2012 in C.C.No.1061 of 2010 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
3
Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the trial Court’), wherein the Respondent / State filed a petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. seeking to take cognizance of the case against the proposed accused as A.2 to A.9 and the same is allowed.
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. A perusal of the record, it is evident that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/proposed accused challenging the order dated 27.12.2012 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 11306 of 2012 in C.C. No. 1061 of 2010 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The said petition, Crl.M.P. No. 11306 of 2012, was filed by the Respondent/State under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to array the proposed accused as Accused Nos. 2 to 9. The learned trial Court allowed the petition.
4. The case status report obtained from the e-Courts portal indicates that C.C.No.1061 of 2010 was settled before the Lok Adalat on
25.01.2019. In light of this settlement, the cause no longer survives for adjudication, rendering the matter infructuous.
5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Date: 23.09.2025 MS
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.488 of 2013 Date: 23.09.2025
MS