APHC010333532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 723/2025 Between: 1. K SURENDRA BABU, S/O. RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC CHAIRMAN OF ADI VARAHI SHAKTI TEMPLE TRUST, 18-8-7, MADHURA NAGAR, TIRUPATI(M) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI. 2. MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. Y GANGI REDDY, S/O.LATE VENKATESU REDDY, R/0.8-4, TIRUCHANURU(V), TIRUPATI (R)(M), TIRUPATI DISTRIC ...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 Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of Proclamation of Prohibitoiy orders in Rc.No.A/227/2025 dated 16.06.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent under Section 164(1) of BNSS against the petitioner Temple without getting police report or on satisfactory material, simply at the behest of local leaders of the party in power issued the impugned proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law besides violation of Art. 14, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India, the petitioner begs to present the instant Criminal Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KANDERI CHETHAN 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of Proclamation of Prohibitary orders in Rc.No.A/227/2025 dated 16.06.2025 on the file of respondent No.2 under Section 164(1) of BNSS against the petitioner/Temple without getting any Police Report or on satisfactory material, simply at the behest of local leaders of the party in power, which is as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law besides violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that the impugned order is passed by respondent No.2 directing the parties to appear before him on 26.06.2025 and that the impugned order is not in force by this date and would submit that cause does not survive for adjudication. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that impugned order dated 26.06.2025 is expired on completion of six months period and would submit that no further orders are necessary as the cause does not survive for adjudication. Recording the submissions made, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. The parties are at liberty to work out their remedy before appropriate forum according to law with regard to the dispute over the subject property. 3 Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 19.01.2026 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case No. 723 of 2025 19.01.2026 Mjl /*