APHC010402462016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. GUNDAPPAGARI NEELAKANTA, S/O G.RAMANNA, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/VIRUPAPURAM, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 2. GOLLA DHARANI, D/O G.NEELAKANTA, AGED ABOUT 4 YEAR S, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MO R/O H.NO.8/243, GUDIKAL VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D V N ACHARYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1035 OF 2016 GUNDAPPAGARI NEELAKANTA, S/O G.RAMANNA, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/VIRUPAPURAM, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. GOLLA DHARANI, D/O G.NEELAKANTA, AGED ABOUT 4 YEAR S, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER GOLLA NEELAMMA, R/O H.NO.8/243, GUDIKAL VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3560] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA GUNDAPPAGARI NEELAKANTA, S/O G.RAMANNA, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/VIRUPAPURAM, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA GOLLA DHARANI, D/O G.NEELAKANTA, AGED ABOUT 4 YEAR S, THER GOLLA NEELAMMA, R/O H.NO.8/243, GUDIKAL VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following Order : Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order dated 07.12.2015 passed by learned jurisdictional Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.2933 of 2015 in M.C.No.12 of 2011, the instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. 2. By the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate concerned issued Warrant of Arrest against the present Petitioner, as the Petitioner was not represented on the particular date. This challenge is made against the order impugned by filing the instant Criminal Revision Case since 2016. Status Report was called for. It appears from the Status Report that the entire M.C.No.12 of 2011 was disposed of 30.01.2013 by the Magistrate concerned. 3. Accordingly, I find no justification to proceed with the instant Criminal Revision Case. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 28.11.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1035 OF 2016 Date: 28.11.2025 KK