APHC010677212014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. M.RAJU @ RAJANNA, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, RAMNAGAR, KANEKAL VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 1. M GOWRAMMA, W/O. M.RAJU @ RAJANNA, VILLAGE, BRAHMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP., HYDERABAD. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to passed in Crl.MP.No.658 of 2014 in M.C.No.16 of 2013 by the court of the J.M.F.C. Guntakal and allow the I IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2009 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 05 M.C.No.16 of 2013 by the court of the J.M.F.C. Guntakal. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1268/2014 M.RAJU @ RAJANNA, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, R/O. D.NO. 6/539, RAMNAGAR, KANEKAL VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR ...PETITIONER AND M GOWRAMMA, W/O. M.RAJU @ RAJANNA, R/O. MAMADURU VILLAGE, BRAHMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal he High Court may be pleased to set-aside the order dated 05 passed in Crl.MP.No.658 of 2014 in M.C.No.16 of 2013 by the court of the J.M.F.C. Guntakal and allow the IA. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2009 OF 2014 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 suspend the order dated 05-05-2014 passed in Crl.MP.No.658 M.C.No.16 of 2013 by the court of the J.M.F.C. Guntakal. Counsel for the Petitioner: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO R/O. D.NO. 6/539, RAMNAGAR, KANEKAL VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR ...PETITIONER R/O. MAMADURU VILLAGE, BRAHMASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY THE PUBLIC ...RESPONDENT(S): CrPC praying that in the stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision aside the order dated 05-05-2014 passed in Crl.MP.No.658 of 2014 in M.C.No.16 of 2013 by the court of the praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 2014 passed in Crl.MP.No.658 of 2014 in 2 1. P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) 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 brevity, ‘Cr.P.C.'), is preferred by the petitioner/petitioner/respondent, challenging the order dated 05.05.2014 passed in Crl.M.P.No.658 of 2014 in M.C.No.16 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are stated in the present Criminal Revision Case. 3. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P.No.658 of 2014 in M.C.No.16 of 2013, under section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. 4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent appeared. 5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 6. This Court has received a report from the Trial Court, wherein it is stated that the revision petitioner (M.Raju @ Rajanna) has passed away; the police have filed an attested copy of the revision petitioner’s death certificate, and have also served notice on the 1st respondent herein; on 15.09.2025, the Trial Court recorded the statement of 1st respondent herein. 7. A perusal of the death certificate of the petitioner reveals that he passed away on 24.09.2021. Despite the petitioner’s demise nearly four years ago, no steps have been taken by the 1st respondent herein to implead the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner as proposed parties. Likewise, the 3 legal representatives of the petitioner have not come forward to be brought on record as parties to the proceedings. 8. Upon considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and in view of the death of the petitioner herein, the cause of the Criminal Revision Case no longer survives. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as abated. 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: 13.10.2025 S A K 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1268 of 2014 Date: 13.10.2025 S A K 91