APHC010413092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 858 & 859 / 2025 Between: DUDALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, CABLE TV, DOOR NO. 2-143, SIMHADRI NAGAR, VALASAPAKALA, KAKINDA RURAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VENTRAPRAGADA MURALI, S/O. TATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. TAX PRACTITIONER, R/O. D.NO. 15-7B-11, FLAT NO. G2, GREESHMA AVENUE APARTMENT, VENKATAPURAM, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHUBANDI V.V.SATYARAMARAJU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Cases under Sections 438 read with 442 of BNSS have been filed by the Petitioner / Accused seeking to set aside the Orders dated 11.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.392 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.178 of 2 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.391 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.179 of 2025 respectively on the file of the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada. 2. Since both the revision cases are between the same parties, these matters are heard and disposed of together by way of common order. 3. These petitions are filed impugning the orders passed by the learned Appellate Judge directing the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in both the cases. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Orders dated 11.08.2025 considered the case of the Petitioner and directed him to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively, within a period of three weeks therefrom. Petitioner could not comply with the said condition. Thereafter, he filed I.A.No.4 of 2025 in both the cases seeking extension of time and the same was also considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Orders dated 24.09.2025 granting three weeks time with a specific observation that no further extension shall be granted. 4. Today, when the matter is coming up for hearing, Sri Ch.Sai Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner, would submit that Petitioner is going to file a petition today seeking further extension of time. 5. Sri Pothubandi V.V.Satyaramaraju, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 vehemently opposed both the cases and would submit that it is utter disobedience of the orders passed by the Court and abuse of process of law. 6. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 3 7. As rightly put by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and as can be seen from the order dated 24.09.2025 in I.A.No.4 of 2025, there is a clear direction to the learned trial Judge to proceed further in these matters, in case the Petitioner failed to deposit the amount within three weeks therefrom. Without complying with the said condition, the Petitioner wants to file a fresh petition seeking further extension. This is nothing but abuse of process of the Court and the same cannot be entertained. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that both the revisions are liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. The learned trial Judge is directed to proceed in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:01.04.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.Nos.858 & 859 of 2025 Dt.01.04.2026 Dinesh