APHC010104622018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 382/2018 Between: 1. S.MAQBOOL, OCC. ACP, PRESENTLY WORKING AT VIJAYAWADA., KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. T BRAHMANANDAM, OCC. ADVOCATE., TEMPLE STREET., MARKAPUR., PRAKASHAM DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following: 2 O R D E R 1. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.898 of 2013 in C.C.No.442 of 2007 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, Prakasam District. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, instead of C.C. No. 442 of 2007, it was wrongly mentioned in the Order copy as Crime No. 442 of 2007. 4. As seen from the record, Crl.M.P.No.898 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. seeking to dismiss the complaint, for want of sanction of prosecution. By impugned order dated 23.01.2018, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Against the said order, the petitioner/accused preferred the revision. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the main C.C.No.442 of 2007 between the same parties was disposed of on 30.12.2020. In support of this, a copy from the e-Courts website has been filed, which reflects that the said C.C.No.442 of 2007 was disposed on 30.12.2020 as the complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. 6. Recording the said submission of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and in view of the disposal of the C.C.No.442 of 2007 on 30.12.2020, this Court finds the cause does not survive for adjudication and the matter would become infructuous. 7. 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: 22.12.2025 SR 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.382 of 2018 Date: 22.12.2025 SR