APHC010168262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 376/2024 Between: 1. ERNAPATI MURALI KRISHNA, S/O SUBBARAYUDU HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O H.NO.24-173, HARIJANAPETA, NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SIRIPIREDDY VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O MALLIKARJUNA REDDY HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. BUSINESS C/O KARTHIKEYA CLOTHS AND ELECTRICALS GANESH NAGAR, OPP DODLA DAIRY, GIDDALUR TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. SUNKESULA JAYAPAL, S/O YOHAN HINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SC COLONY CHABOLU VILLAGE, NANDYAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 3. A RAMUDU, S/O NOT KNOWN HINDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, P.C.NO.1764 WORKING AS CONSTABLE, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI THROUGH SHO, NANDYAL III TOWN P.S. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Revision and set aside the 2 Order passed by the Learned Hon’ble Special Judge for trail of Cases under SCs and STs(POA) Act - Cum VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Crl.M.P.No. 74 of 2023 (Complaint in Protest of the Final Report in Crime No.479 of 2021 of Nandyal III Town Police Station) Dated: 18.1.2024 and consequently to take cognizance against the Accused 1 to Accused 3 in Crime No. 479 of 2021 of Nandyal III Town Police Station, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESHWARLU GUMMADAVELLY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 376/2024 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed, challenging the Order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC’s and ST’s (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessios Judge, Kurnool District at Kurnool in Crl.M.P.No.74 of 2023 (complaint in protest of the final report in Crime No. 479 of 2021 of Nandyal III Town Police Station. 2. Heard Mr.Venkateshwarlu Gummadavelly, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, Mr.O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Accused Nos. 1 to 3, and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State is in attendance. 3. Initially, a case in Crime No. 479 of 2021 was registered at Nandyal III Town Police Station against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein) based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner stating that A-1 had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- on various occasions by executing ten promissory notes and, when demanded for repayment, avoided the same. Upon being pressured for repayment, A-1, in collusion with the other accused, called the petitioner, abused him in filthy language by referring to his caste, assaulted him, and threatened to kill him and foist a false rape case against him if he demanded the money again. After investigation, the police referred the case as false. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a protest petition 4 before the Special Court. The learned Judge, upon consideration, dismissed the protest petition by order dated 18.01.2024. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Special Court is completely devoid of reasons, as it fails to comply with the requirement under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. He further contends that several factual aspects need to be examined and decided only during the course of the trial. Simply because Respondent No. 3, who is a police constable, is arrayed as an accused, the State Police cannot refer the complaint as false at the stage of investigation. The actual role of the accused can be determined only during trial. The protest petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed solely on the ground that when a civil wrong is disguised as a criminal offence, the criminal court must exercise caution to prevent abuse of the court’s process. He, therefore, prays that the order passed by the learned Special Court be set aside. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, opposed the present revision and submit that the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Nandyal, conducted a thorough investigation in this case. During the investigation, four witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., with videography. The investigation revealed that A-1 was merely postponing repayment of the loan, and, vexed by this, the petitioner foisted the present case. The investigation further concluded that the alleged offence did not occur. The 5 learned Special Court, therefore, passed a well-reasoned order which does not warrant any interference of this Court. 6. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed on record and the impugned order, the order would show that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer recorded statements of witnesses, examined the circumstances of the transaction, and concluded that the allegations were false, noting that the dispute arose due to a delay in repayment of a loan. The Special Court considered these findings and dismissed the protest petition, observing that the criminal court must exercise caution to prevent the abuse of its process when a civil dispute is presented as a criminal offence. The Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the reasoning of the learned Special Court. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 12.02.2026. UPS 6 208 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 376/2024 Dt.12.02.2026 UPS