MADDA YUSU RATNAM @ CHITTIBABU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CRLRC/224/2023 · 2026-02-16
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18311 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 18311 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010110502023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 224/2023 Between:
1. MADDA YUSU RATNAM @ CHITTIBABU, S/O JAKKARAYYA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO.L0-353, MAIN ROAD, KALLA, MEKALADHIBBA, BONDADA, BHIMAVARAM DISTRICT. 2. MADDA JAKKARAYYA,, S/O SATYANANDAM, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/O D.NO.10-352/1, MAIN ROAD, KALLA, MEKALADHIBBA, BONDADA, BHIMAVARAM DISTRICT. 3. MADDA RAHUL MOSES @ MOJI,, S/O YESU RATNAM @ CHITTIBABU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O D.NO.10-353, MAIN ROAD, KALLA, MEKALADHIBBA, BONDADA, BHIMAVARAM DISTRICT. 4. MADDA CLINTON @ RISHI,, S/O YESU RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O D.NO.10-353, MAIN ROAD, KALLA, MEKALADHIBBA, BONDADA, BHIMAVARAM DISTRICT. 5. GUMMAPU MANASA,, C/O GUMMAPU SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O D.NO.4-72, PEDA PETA, NEAR AMBEDHKAR STREET, PALAKODERU MANDAL, PALAKODERU, BHIMAVARAM DISTRICT. 6. RAPAKAPEREPATNAM,, S/O RAPAKA LAJAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-364, KALAVA PUVVU MEDA VEEDHI, PERRAJUPETA, KAKINADA (URBAN), KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND
2
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2. KARANAM CHANDRAVATHI, W/O PEDDIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.366/1, MEKALA DHIBBA VILLAGE, KALLA MANDAL, BHIMAVARAM DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toCourt to allow the present Criminal Revision by setting aside the Order passed by the Hon'ble Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate..Bhimavaram dated 13.09.2022 in S.R.No.3515/2021 in C.C.No.250 of 2022 and/or pass such further Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. B CHANDRA SHEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. T N M RANGA RAO The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 224 of 2023 Order:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C./ Sections 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’),, has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 5 to 8 against the order, dated 13.09.2022 in S.R.No.3515/2021 in C.C.No.250/2022 by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram. 2. Initially, the case was registered based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, wherein the names of all the accused were specifically mentioned.
However, after completion of investigation, the police filed a final report only against Accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offences under Sections 323, 506 read with 34 IPC, deleting the other accused on the basis of statements of certain witnesses. 3. The record further discloses that, upon receipt of notice, the de facto complainant appeared before the Court and filed a protest petition. In support of the same, the complainant and witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3. The learned trial Judge, upon proper appreciation of the material available on record, and taking into consideration the allegations made against the other accused regarding their involvement, has rightly taken cognizance against all the accused. 4
4. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned order does not warrant interference, as no jurisdictional error or illegality has been committed by the learned trial Judge. Though the police report was filed only against Accused Nos.3 and 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, the same consequences would equally apply to the other accused in view of the material brought on record. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 5. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date: 17.02.2026 ARB
5
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 224/2023
Date: 17.02.2026
ARB