APHC010387412026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 848/2026 Between: 1. AKULA MOHANA PURUSHPTTAMA RAO, S/O LATE VENUGOPALA RAOAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESSR/O CHINTALAPUDI VILLAGE AND MANDALELURU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. BALANAGU JAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. (LATE) RAVI CHANDRA, KODAMANCHILI VILLAGE, ACHANTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.41 OF 2013 OF ACHANTA POLICE STATION) RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2026 IN CRL.R.C.NO.848 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B SRIRAM KARTIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BODA SATYA NAGA MANJEET 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’), challenging the impugned order dated 14.07.2026, whereby the discharge application filed in Crl.M.P.No.274 of 2025 in C.C.No.228 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol, was dismissed. 2. Mr.B.Sriram Kartik, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds of the revision and submits that there is no evidence available to contend that the respondent No.2/de-facto complainant had paid nearly Rs.39,02,600/- to the petitioner. There is no documentary evidence available to prove it. The learned Trial Court erroneously dismissed the Application filed under Sections 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C’). Hence, urged to set aside the impugned order and discharge the petitioner/accused. 3. Mr.A.Sai Rohith, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Mr.Boda Satya Naga Manjeet, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court had assigned cogent and convincing the reasons for dismissing the petition filed for discharge the 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 petitioner as to prove his innocence. A full-fledged Trial has to be conducted by the learned Trial Court in the said crime. There is some prima-facie material available against the petitioner/accused No.1. There is no material irregularity and the miscarriage of justice in the impugned order and that there are no merits in the present Criminal Revision Case. Hence, urged to dismiss the petition. 4. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 5. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order in Crl.M.P.274 of 2025 in C.C.No.228 of 2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol, dated 14.07.2026, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 6. As seen from the record, petitioner/accused was arraigned as Accused No.1 in Cr.No.41 of 2013 which was registered for the alleged offences under Section 420, 506 and 34 Indian Penal Code, 1960 (for brievity, ‘the I.P.C.’) by the Station House Officer, Achanta Police Station, West Godavari District. After thorough investigation only, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner who is a sole accused in this case. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.274 of 2025 in C.C.No.228 of 2024 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol, for discharging 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 him from the said crime. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no material on record to show that the de-facto complainant has parted huge amount to the petitioner/accused and that the de-facto complainant has not produced any bills to prove the same. It is further submitted that the de- facto complainant intentionally foisted the false case. The prosecution, in the charge sheet, alleges that the statements of the witnesses are corroborated and it is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in the trial, which is totally false and hence, urged to set-aside the Order dated 14.07.2026 dismissing the Discharge Application filed in Crl.M.P.274 of 2025 in C.C.No.228 of 2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol. 7. On perusal of the statements of the de-facto complainant and other prosecution witnesses, there are averments that the respondent No.2 had given an amount of Rs.39,02,600/- to the petitioner/accused. The statement of the witnesses of the prosecution before the investigating officer under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.P.C’/Section 180 of ‘the BNS’, are corroborated with the statements of the other witnesses. This court or the learned Trial Court cannot come to conclusion in discharge petition by conducting the Mini-Trial. Whether the petitioner has produced the bill or any evidence to that effect, and all these contentions are subject matter of full-fledged trial before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner/accused is 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 always at liberty to pose necessary questions to the witnesses of the prosecution and elicit truth from the witnesses of the prosecution. The statements of the prosecution witnesses’ prima-facie disclosed that the petitioner had allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of ‘the I.P.C.’. The learned Trial Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing the Crl.M.P.274 of 2025 in C.C.No.228 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palakol. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are subject matter of a full-fledged Trial. There is no miscarriage of justice and there is no material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. The Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had undergone a thigh surgery recently as he fell down and that he is unable to move. Therefore, the petitioner requested that the order of dispensing with the petitioner before the learned trial court may be passed. The said request is accepted as it is convincing and reasonable. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, dispensing with the presence of the Petitioner before the learned Trial Court. The Petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when his presence is required. Since the alleged offences are compoundable in nature, the learned Trial Court shall 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 make an endeavour to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties. It is made clear that any observations made by this Court in the present case shall not come in the way of the learned Trial Court in adjudicating the matter on its merits after completion of the full-fledged trial. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.09.2026 DRNR/VMM 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 97 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.848 of 2026 Date:23.09.2026 DRNR/VMM